The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘biology’

Canada Builds Live SARS-CoV-2 Viruses From Computer Code Alone That ‘Can Be Used For Gain-of-Function Research’: Journal ‘Viruses’


A closed pandemic loop of digital design, synthetic GOF viruses, and government-controlled verification.

A new peer-reviewed study published in the journal Viruses says that publicly funded Canadian laboratories digitally designed full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes, chemically synthesized them using commercial services, and generated live, replication-competent coronaviruses without starting from a natural virus sample.

The paper, titled “Developing Synthetic Full-Length SARS-CoV-2 cDNAs and Reporter Viruses for High-Throughput Antiviral Drug Screening,” documents the alleged creation of infectious Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 viruses from computer-designed genetic sequences alone.

Coming in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic—which killed millions of people worldwide and was linked by multiple intelligence agencies to laboratory research—the study raises national security concerns about the ability of government-funded institutions to create replication-competent pandemic viruses from digital sequence data alone, using commercial infrastructure with limited public oversight.

In light of these capabilities, the study also raises the possibility that governments could define, simulate, and respond to a biological threat almost entirely within digital and laboratory frameworks—leaving the public reliant on official interpretation rather than independently observable evidence.

Viruses Built from Computer Code Alone

The authors state that they did not rely on physical viral isolates to create the viruses.

Instead, they used commercial DNA synthesis services to generate the entire coronavirus genome:

“We opted to use cDNA chemical synthesis services to generate full-length wild-type and reporter Delta and Omicron clones.”

They further explain:

“DNA synthesis is a viable method to rapidly generate coronavirus cDNAs and recombinant viruses.”

Those synthesized genomes were then said to be used to generate live viruses:

“Clone-derived Delta and Omicron wild-type and reporter viruses were successfully rescued and showed replication kinetics comparable to patient-derived isolates.”

The study claims that the resulting viruses were infectious and capable of sustained replication in cell culture.

The paper emphasizes that the same system can be used to generate new viral variants based solely on sequence data:

“DNA synthesis is a viable and rapid option to generate reverse genetic systems for wild-type and reporter viruses using sequence information alone.”

Acknowledged Gain-of-Function Capability

In the Discussion section, the authors explicitly acknowledge that the methodology they used qualifies as gain-of-function (GOF) capable research:

“It is important to acknowledge that the novel approach described in this study—generating replication-competent viruses from synthetic DNA while introducing heterogeneous gene functions—can be used for ‘gain-of-function’ research.”

Where the Viruses Were Said to Be Created

All work involving purportedly live SARS-CoV-2 was conducted in Canada at a high-containment facility:

“All the experiments involving infectious SARS-CoV-2 viruses were conducted at VIDO-InterVac in an approved Biosafety containment level 3 (BSL3) laboratory.”

VIDO-InterVac is part of the University of Saskatchewan, which is a central institutional hub for the research described in the paper.

Author Affiliations

The authors are affiliated with multiple Canadian institutions, including:

  • University of Saskatchewan (Department of Biochemistry, Microbiology, and Immunology; Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization),
  • University of Alberta (Department of Cell Biology; Department of Medical Microbiology & Immunology; Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology),
  • Sunnybrook Research Institute (Toronto),
  • University of Toronto (Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology).

Public Funding Sources

The research was funded entirely through public Canadian funding, according to the paper’s funding disclosure:

“This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network (CoVaRR-Net)… CIHR Operating COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding Opportunity—Therapeutics… and NSERC.”

Additional operational support came from:

“The Government of Saskatchewan… the Government of Canada through Prairies Economic Development Canada… and the Canada Foundation for Innovation Major Science Initiatives for its CL3 facility.”

What the Paper Establishes

The study documents, in the authors’ words, that:

  • Full-length SARS-CoV-2 genomes were digitally designed
  • Those genomes were chemically synthesized
  • Live, replication-competent coronaviruses were said to be generated from that synthetic DNA
  • The method is acknowledged to be usable for gain-of-function research
  • The work was publicly funded and conducted in Canadian government-supported laboratories

These facts are stated directly in the paper and do not rely on inference, speculation, or external interpretation.

Bottom Line

The new Viruses paper reveals that governments claim to possess the technical ability to define a virus digitally, synthesize it physically, and validate its behavior entirely within controlled laboratory systems—allowing modern pandemic response to operate almost entirely inside digital, synthetic, and laboratory environments.

That convergence raises unresolved questions about national security, transparency, independent verification, and how much trust the public is asked to place in closed scientific and governmental frameworks when responding to future biological threats.

The study aligns with earlier FOIA-released DARPA documents showing that U.S. biodefense systems were already built to synthesize viruses and manufacture mRNA countermeasures from sequence data alone, placing the Canadian work within a broader pre-existing digital pandemic infrastructure.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

U.S. Intelligence Classified and Redacted Findings on COVID-19 PCR Tests: New FOIA Documents


New records show top U.S. nuclear, national security laboratories scrutinized primers used to define the pandemic—but hid the results.

Newly released Department of Energy (DOE) records obtained by U.S. Right to Know through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requenst show that U.S. federal intelligence agencies classified and redacted the results of an internal review of COVID-19 PCR test primers, even as those tests were used to define “cases,” drive emergency policy, and justify unprecedented social and economic controls.

The documents reveal that during the pandemic, the U.S. government quietly subjected PCR test primer sets—the molecular components that determine what PCR tests detect—to classified scrutiny by top national security laboratories, while withholding the findings from the public under national-security and intelligence exemptions.

At the center of the release is a classified internal communication titled “DRAFT memo on Primer Sets,” circulated through the DOE’s Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and reviewed by assay experts at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The memo itself remains classified.

Its conclusions were redacted.

No public explanation was ever provided.

PCR Testing Was Treated as a Classified Intelligence Issue

PCR tests do not detect an intact virus and do not prove infection.

They work by using short genetic sequences—primers—to bind to matching genetic material and amplify it until a signal is detected.

What a PCR test detects depends entirely on what its primers bind to.

The DOE records show that this foundational question—what COVID-19 PCR tests were actually detecting—was handled not as a public scientific matter, but as a classified intelligence issue.

One internal email chain explicitly references a classified document titled:

“FW: (S//REL) DRAFT memo on Primer Sets”

Another message states that the memo was reviewed by a specialist:

“I had our newly assay expert review this and provide the comments within.”

The routing shows coordination across DOE intelligence offices and U.S. national security laboratories.

The content of the memo, the concerns it addressed, and the conclusions it reached are all withheld from public release.

What the Government Did Not Disclose

Throughout the pandemic, the public was repeatedly told that COVID-19 PCR testing was reliable, specific, and settled.

Questions about PCR design were often dismissed as misinformation.

The DOE records show the opposite posture inside government: PCR primer design was serious enough to warrant classified review by nuclear-era national laboratories, with the results deemed sensitive enough to be redacted under national-security and intelligence-source protections.

DOE explicitly justified withholding the information by citing risks to national security and intelligence methods, and assigned declassification dates decades into the future.

There is no indication in the records that the findings were shared with public-health agencies, published in scientific journals, or communicated to the public.

Why PCR Primer Design Is Existential, Not Technical

PCR testing formed the backbone of the pandemic response.

PCR “positives” were treated as synonymous with infection and were used to define:

  • COVID “cases”
  • Community spread
  • Hospital surges
  • Lockdowns and emergency orders
  • Vaccine emergency authorizations

If PCR primers bind to viral genetic material, positives reflect virus detection.

If PCR primers bind to human genetic material, positives can reflect the person being tested.

That distinction determines whether a “case” is an infection—or merely a genetic detection.

What the CDC’s PCR Primer Actually Aligns To

An independent BLAST analysis was run of the CDC’s SARS-CoV-2 forward PCR primer.

The results show that the primer has multiple perfect and near-perfect matches to the human genome, including:

  • Repeated 13–16 base stretches with 100% identity to human DNA
  • Longer alignments exceeding 94–95% identity across multiple human chromosomes

In plain terms: the CDC’s COVID-19 PCR primer can bind to human genetic material.

That establishes a biological mechanism by which a PCR test administered “for COVID-19” can return a positive result by amplifying human DNA or RNA rather than viral RNA.

If that occurs, the test still produces a positive signal.

The result is still recorded as a “COVID case.”

But no infection has been detected.

The “case” is a human genetic detection.

Why This Explains the Secrecy

The DOE records show that this was not ignored.

It was escalated—and then classified.

National security laboratories are not tasked with reviewing PCR primer sets unless the implications are systemic.

If the test used to define a global pandemic can generate positives without detecting a virus, public disclosure would collapse the legitimacy of case counts, emergency powers, and pandemic policy itself.

The records show that U.S. intelligence examined the issue.

They also show that the findings were classified, redacted, and withheld from the public.

The classification of PCR findings is especially significant given that no U.S. agency has ever independently verified the original clinical sample from which the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence was derived.

The United States accepted a digital genetic code supplied by the Chinese government—without access to the physical lung sample it was allegedly sequenced from—and relied on PCR testing and that same in-silico sequence to define cases, drive emergency policy, and later encode spike protein into hundreds of millions of vaccine doses.

That secrecy is even more consequential given that U.S. military planners had already built—and quietly funded—a DARPA-backed pandemic pipeline designed to treat digital genetic sequences as functional viruses, synthesizing infectious clones and mass-producing mRNA countermeasures without requiring a verified physical pathogen, meaning both COVID “case” detection and the subsequent vaccine rollout rested on the same unverified, in-silico genetic foundation.

Dr. Kary Mullis, the late inventor of the PCR test, said in a 1997 interview (here) that his test should not be used to determine whether a subject is infected with a virus.

This is because the test “can find almost anything in anybody” if its parameters are set high enough, tainting the results, according to the Nobel Prize winner.

“Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test. If you run it long enough… you can find almost anything in anybody,” Dr. Mullis said. “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”

Mullis’s warning matters because it confirms that PCR was not designed to establish clinical infection, meaning a pandemic built on PCR “cases” can reflect amplified genetic signals rather than illness—a vulnerability that could be serious enough to later draw classified scrutiny from U.S. national security laboratories.

What the Records Prove—& What They Imply

The documents do not release the primer memo.

They do not disclose the conclusions.

They do not quantify how many PCR positives may reflect human material.

They do prove that:

  • COVID-19 PCR test primers were scrutinized by U.S. intelligence
  • Top national security laboratories were involved
  • The findings were classified and redacted
  • The public was never informed

Combined with sequence-alignment evidence showing that the CDC’s PCR primer binds to human DNA, the implication is unavoidable:

The U.S. government privately examined whether the test used to define the pandemic could generate “cases” without detecting infection—and then classified the answer.

The DOE records were released to U.S. Right to Know under FOIA request HQ-2025-03244-F.

The primer alignment is reproducible using the CDC’s published primer sequence and the human reference genome.

The public was told PCR testing was settled science.

The documents show the government didn’t treat it that way behind the scenes.

And whatever they found, they made sure we were never allowed to see it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

No U.S. Agency Ever Verified the Lung Sample the Chinese Gov’t Built the SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Sequence From


Before injecting it into hundreds of millions of Americans via COVID-19 vaccines.

No U.S. agency has ever verified that the COVID-19 pathogen’s (SARS-CoV-2) genetic code that a Chinese government biolab supplied at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic—said to have been sequenced from a pneumonia patient’s lung wash—actually originated from that clinical sample before it was encoded into hundreds of millions of mRNA vaccine doses.

China never provided the physical patient sample to any U.S. institution.

In fact, Beijing issued an official directive forbidding the sharing of any samples and ordering the destruction of those samples.

And the U.S. never demanded or required an analysis of those samples before allowing its citizens to be injected with China’s pathogenic spike protein-producing code.

This critical step in verification was—and still has been—skipped, despite earlier warnings that China’s military had been exploring bioweapons development that integrates biotechnology and genetic engineering into a “new domain of warfare.”

It was also skipped despite EcoHealth Alliance’s 2018 ‘DEFUSE’ proposal to DARPA to collaborate with China to create chimeric coronavirus spike proteins with furin cleavage sites, receptor-binding domain upgrades, and two proline insertions—the defining characteristics of the COVID-19 pathogen and mRNA vaccines.

Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation—meaning billions were injected with a genetic drug that codes for a Chinese government-constructed, lab-altered spike protein.

How China Made the SARS-CoV-2 Genetic Sequence

The SARS-CoV-2 genetic code was created in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory at the Chinese government-run Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, using long-debunked (here) reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR) technology.

  • Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, said in a 1997 interview (here) that his test should not be used to determine whether a patient is infected with a virus.
  • This is because the test “can find almost anything in anybody” if its parameters are set high enough, tainting the results.
  • “Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test. If you run it long enough… you can find almost anything in anybody,” he said. “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick.”

A February 2020 Nature publication explains how China created the SARS-CoV-2 sequence:

Here we study a single patient who was a worker at the market and who was admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan on 26 December 2019 while experiencing a severe respiratory syndrome that included fever, dizziness and a cough. Metagenomic RNA sequencing4 of a sample of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from the patient identified a new RNA virus strain from the family Coronaviridae, which is designated here ‘WH-Human 1’ coronavirus (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’). Phylogenetic analysis of the complete viral genome (29,903 nucleotides) revealed that the virus was most closely related (89.1% nucleotide similarity) to a group of SARS-like coronaviruses (genus Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus) that had previously been found in bats in China5. This outbreak highlights the ongoing ability of viral spill-over from animals to cause severe disease in humans.

To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described4,6,7,8. In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. Of the 384,096 contigs assembled by Megahit9, the longest (30,474 nucleotides (nt)) had a high abundance and was closely related to a bat SARS-like coronavirus (CoV) isolate—bat SL-CoVZC45 (GenBank accession number MG772933)—that had previously been sampled in China, with a nucleotide identity of 89.1% (Supplementary Tables 1, 2). The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. Remapping the RNA-sequencing data to the complete genome of WHCV resulted in an assembly of 123,613 reads, providing 99.99% genome coverage at a mean depth of 6.04× (range, 0.01–78.84×) (Extended Data Fig. 3). The viral load in the BALF sample was estimated by qPCR to be 3.95 × 108 copies per ml (Extended Data Fig. 4).

China handed the world a genetic code in computer form (in silico).

And governments all over the world accepted that code without scrutiny.

They allowed billions of people to be injected with a vaccine that creates the Chinese government’s foreign protein in the body for more than 700 days.

China Had the SARS-CoV-2 Sequence ‘More Than Two Weeks’ Before Releasing It

A January 2024 U.S. House Energy & Commerce press release confirms China possessed the SARS-CoV-2 sequence “days before the CCP acknowledged an outbreak, and more than two weeks before the China CDC release[d] their sequence.”

The congressional body said that fact “calls into question how early the CCP knew about the virus and how long they withheld this information from the world.”

This significant discovery further underscores why we cannot trust any of the so-called ‘facts’ or data provided by the CCP and calls into serious question the legitimacy of any scientific theories based on such information. The American people deserve to know the truth about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and our investigation has uncovered numerous causes for concern, including how taxpayers’ dollars are spent, how our government’s public health agencies operate, and the need for more oversight into research grants to foreign scientists,” said Chairs Rodgers, Guthrie, and Griffith.

My report from last month revealed that before the pandemic, DARPA had developed a program to synthesize viruses purely from digital sequences within in 60 days.

Bottom Line

In the end, the world was locked down and injected on the honor system of a hostile foreign government, and not one U.S. agency has yet produced the single piece of evidence that should have come first: independent proof that China’s digital code ever came from a real human sample.

Will the same national security concern-raising strategy be used in the apparently incoming bird flu pandemic?

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NIAID Funds Creation of Chimeric H5N1 Bird Flu Viruses With Modified Cleavage Sites and Enhanced Mammalian-Cell Expression: ‘npj Vaccines’


Amid worries of a coming avian influenza pandemic.

A new study preprint published last week in the journal npj Vaccines describes a multinational research program that designed, engineered, and tested synthetic versions of the H5N1 bird flu virus’s hemagglutinin protein—one of the key components that allows the virus to infect cells.

The scientists altered these genetic sequences, delivered them into animals using advanced DNA and lipid-nanoparticle (LNP) technologies, and then conducted lethal challenge experiments with highly pathogenic H5N1 viruses inside a Canadian government biocontainment facility.

This means researchers created synthetic versions of a dangerous flu component, injected them into mice using vaccine-style technologies, and then exposed the animals to very deadly strains of H5N1 to test how well the constructs worked.

The study is authored by a large team from the United States, Canada, and Europe, including researchers from the Wistar Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the University of Bologna.

Funding Sources

The research was funded primarily by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) through its Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers (CIVIC) program under contract 75N93019C00051.

This is a federal vaccine-development initiative said to be designed to prepare the U.S. for future influenza outbreaks using rapidly adaptable genetic platforms.

But the creation of new viruses raises national security concerns.

Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, the CIA, and Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation.

Additional support came from the W.W. Smith Charitable Trust Distinguished Professorship in Cancer Research and The Jill and Mark Fishman Foundation.

In other words, the work was paid for by the same federal agencies responsible for pandemic vaccine programs, along with private biomedical foundations.

Institutions Involved

The experiments were carried out by a coordinated network of laboratories:

  • The Wistar Institute (Philadelphia) designed and built the synthetic H5N1 DNA constructs, performed immune studies, and conducted structural modeling using AlphaFold 3.
  • The University of Pennsylvania assisted with lipid-nanoparticle formulation and microbiology methods.
  • The Public Health Agency of Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg performed the live H5N1 infections and lethal challenge experiments, including tests using a recombinant H5N1 virus constructed from synthetic gene segments.
  • The University of Bologna contributed additional biotechnology expertise.

The U.S. labs designed and built the engineered genetic materials, and the Canadian government lab carried out the dangerous live-virus testing.

The authors include: Ebony N. Gary, Nicholas J. Tursi, Casey E. Hojecki, Robert Vendramelli, Martina Tomirotti, Bryce Warner, Cory Livingston, Thang Truong, Yangcheng Gao, Sachchidanand Tiwari, Norbert Pardi, Darwyn Kobasa, and senior author David B. Weiner.

What Is Scientifically Alarming

Several aspects of this research stand out as high-risk from a biodefense perspective, even though the work is framed as vaccine development.

1. Synthetic Genetic Engineering of H5N1 Components

The team did not merely study existing viruses.

They engineered new synthetic versions of the H5N1 hemagglutinin gene, including codon optimization (which boosts expression in human cells) and deliberate modification of the protease cleavage site, a region strongly linked to H5N1’s virulence.

They edited the part of the virus that helps determine how dangerous it is.

2. Construction of a Recombinant H5N1 Virus From Synthesized Gene Segments

The researchers created a chimeric H5N1 virus by combining gene segments that were commercially synthesized and assembled from cloned DNA.

They then rescued this artificial virus using reverse-genetics techniques.

This means they built a new lab-made version of H5N1, piece-by-piece, using artificial DNA.

3. Use of LNP Delivery and Electroporation to Express Viral Genes Inside Animals

The study delivered the synthetic HA genes using LNPs (the same technology used in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines) and electroporation, a technique that uses electrical pulses to force genetic material into cells.

Both approaches greatly increase how efficiently engineered genetic material can spread through tissues.

These tools make it much easier for lab-designed genetic material to take hold inside the body.

4. Lethal Challenge Work Using High-Dose H5N1

Mice were exposed to 10 times the lethal dose (10 LD50) of highly pathogenic H5N1 strains—including both natural isolates and the lab-built recombinant virus.

They infected animals with very large amounts of a deadly virus to test whether the synthetic constructs gave protection.

5. Corporate Ties of the Senior Author

The senior scientist, David B. Weiner, discloses paid relationships with Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Inovio, Flagship, and others.

This means the research directly intersects with large pharmaceutical companies that develop genetic vaccines and related technologies, raising conflicts of interest worries.

Why This Matters for Policymakers

This study demonstrates that federal funding is supporting research with clear dual-use potential, meaning it could advance vaccines or, if misapplied, enable the construction or enhancement of dangerous influenza viruses.

The same techniques used to create synthetic vaccine antigens—codon optimization, cleavage-site modification, LNP delivery, and recombinant virus assembly—can also be used to create novel viral strains with properties that do not currently exist in nature.

The technical sophistication is notable, especially the deliberate editing of cleavage sites and the full reconstruction of an H5N1 virus from cloned fragments, which is uncommon outside of specialized influenza-engineering programs.

This work shows that laboratories funded by the U.S. government and partnered with foreign agencies are actively engineering pieces of dangerous bird flu viruses and testing them in high-security facilities.

The stated goal is to develop better vaccines, but the methods overlap with techniques traditionally associated with gain-of-function research, which can create new biological risks if not tightly controlled.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

USDA–NIH–University of Georgia–Mount Sinai Team Aerosolizes Lab-Engineered ‘Chimeric’ Influenza Frankenviruses: Journal ‘npj Vaccines’


Raising national security concerns.

A Thursday npj Vaccines study confirms U.S. federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded the laboratory creation of genetically engineered two influenza viruses (H9N2/H5N2) built from plasmids, artificial gene fusions, synthetic insertions, and modified genome segments.

The work was carried out by researchers at the University of Georgia, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and the U.S. National Poultry Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

The authors listed on the study are: “Flavio Cargnin Faccin, L. Claire Gay, Dikshya Regmi, Robert Hoelzl, Teresa D. Mejías, Darrell Kapczynski, Florian Krammer & Daniel R. Perez.”

The study’s funding confirms direct federal involvement.

“Funding for this work includes grants… National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grant award numbers 2021-67015-33406 and 2024-67015-42736, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Contract number 75N93021C00014.”

Construction of the Engineered Viruses

The researchers did not isolate a purported virus from nature.

They built new viruses entirely through reverse genetics, using plasmid DNA transfected into human and dog cell lines.

The paper states: “Recombinant viruses were rescued by reverse genetics using the 8-plasmid system and helper plasmids in a coculture of HEK293T and MDCK cells.”

The process is described explicitly.

According to the authors, “1 µg of each plasmid was mixed… and used to overlay the cell coculture.”

Viral stocks were then expanded artificially rather than occurring naturally, as the study reports: “Viral stocks were generated in 10-day-old specific pathogen-free (SPF) eggs.”

These details confirm that the viruses were constructed in the laboratory, rescued from DNA, and amplified in eggs.

‘Chimeric’ Pathogens

The viruses created under USDA and NIH funding are laboratory-assembled chimeras—genomes stitched together from engineered parts that do not exist in nature.

The study shows that two influenza proteins were fused into a single artificial gene, something no wild virus carries.

As the authors write: “Segment 2 was modified to encode a chimeric PB1-M2 open reading frame (ORF) separated by a glycine-glycine-glycine-glycine-serine (G4S) spacer.”

This forces the virus to make an unnatural hybrid protein.

To ensure the virus depends on this man-made fusion protein, its normal version of M2 was deliberately shut off.

The paper states: “Segment 7 was modified by introducing multiple early stop codons in the M2 ORF via site-directed mutagenesis to prevent its expression.”

This eliminates the native M2 and locks the virus into the engineered design.

The researchers also inserted a synthetic 58–amino acid sequence into the HA segment, including an artificial peptide not found in any influenza strain.

The methods describe this as: “Segment 4… was modified to insert a 58-amino-acid-long sequence… which included the unique 8-amino-acid peptide… ‘DRPAVIAN.’”

Another modification swaps out the cleavage site of an H5 virus and replaces it with one taken from a human 1934 H1N1 strain, altering how the virus activates inside host cells.

The authors state: “The H5 HA HPAI cleavage site was replaced with that of the A/Puerto Rico/8/1934 (H1N1) (PR8) strain.”

Finally, the virus was engineered to manufacture a chicken immune-signaling molecule from inside infected cells.

The study confirms: “The mature protein-coding sequence of chicken IL-18… was subcloned in frame with the NA ORF.”

These combined changes—fusion genes, disabled native proteins, synthetic inserts, human-strain cleavage sites, and cytokine-expression modules—create a virus with properties that no purported natural influenza lineage carries.

Aerosol Exposure in Animals

The researchers then exposed day-old chickens to the engineered viruses through aerosolized live-virus delivery.

The methods describe this process clearly, all done within BSL-3 lab conditions:

“One-day old SPF White Leghorn chickens… were vaccinated via aerosol using an aerosol chamber… A 5 mL volume of MLV-H9N2-IL was loaded into the Aeroneb lab nebulizer, resulting in an average exposure of 1×10⁶ EID50/chicken… The exposure lasted for 15 min.”

This confirms that the USDA- and NIH-funded engineered viruses were not only constructed but also introduced into animals through airborne delivery.

Bottom Line

The study documents how U.S. federal agencies oversaw the full laboratory assembly of engineered influenza viruses—built from plasmids, redesigned through reverse genetics, and altered with fusion genes, stop-codon knockouts, synthetic peptide insertions, cytokine-expression modules, and foreign cleavage sites.

These are not environmental isolates; they are fully man-made constructs created inside U.S. government and university laboratories under USDA and NIH funding.

The viruses were then delivered to live animals by aerosol, demonstrating not only construction capability but functional deployment.

Work of this nature carries obvious national-security implications: it establishes the technical capacity to design, modify, and disseminate engineered influenza strains whose properties cannot be predicted from any purported natural lineage.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

DARPA’s Secret 60-Day Pandemic Pipeline: FOIA Documents Reveal U.S. Military Program to Synthesize Viruses From Digital Sequences and Mass-Produce mRNA Countermeasures


Newly released DARPA files show a Pentagon-backed system designed to turn raw genetic code into real viruses, isolate antibodies, and manufacture 20,000 doses of mRNA vaccines in just two months.

This report examines an October 2025 FOIA release from U.S. Right to Know regarding DARPA’s “Pandemic Prevention Platform (P3)” Research Description Document (RDD) from Duke University, Revision 3 (January 2020)—a program that was already operational before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

DARPA’s own words paint the clearest picture yet of a fully integrated pre-COVID pandemic U.S. military system that can:

  • take only a digital sequence of a virus
  • synthesize an infectious clone
  • grow it in a “Thaw-and-Infect” panel of human and animal cell lines
  • isolate antibodies from infected blood
  • evolve those antibodies using computational mutation engines
  • encode those antibodies into modified mRNA
  • package them in lipid nanoparticles
  • and produce 20,000 doses within 60 days

The program is open about building a platform that works even when no physical virus exists, only a computer file.

This newly released document directly reinforces my own research findings—showing that the Wuhan-Hu-1 spike (COVID-19 spike protein), assembled entirely in silico and containing a non-coronavirus-derived mosaic, fits precisely within the digital-first, synthetic-construction pandemic pipeline DARPA had already built before COVID-19 emerged.

And it was precisely this computationally stitched sequence—first published by Wu et al. in Nature (February 2020) without any purified viral isolate or plaque-verified spike protein—that became the official worldwide “reference” antigen used for diagnostics, modeling, mRNA vaccine design, and every subsequent COVID-19 countermeasure.

The DARPA document suggests the disturbing possibility that the COVID-19 “pandemic” may have originated not from a naturally circulating virus, but from a computationally generated sequence that was subsequently treated as a real pathogen and mass-manufactured into international medical countermeasures (“vaccines”).

And because this digitally assembled spike became the sole antigen used by Pfizer and Moderna, the world’s first mass-distributed mRNA vaccines could have effectively programmed billions of human bodies to manufacture the same engineered, domain-modular construct that DARPA’s biodefense pipeline, UPenn’s antibody-engineering platform, and Baric’s NIH-funded chimeric coronavirus system had already optimized long before COVID was declared a pandemic.

In other words, billions of people may have been injected with instructions to manufacture a synthetic, digitally designed spike protein born not from nature, but from a Pentagon–NIH engineering pipeline.

Everything quoted below is verbatim from the FOIA document (HROO11-17-2-0069).

21 F 0004 099.85MB ∙ PDF file
Download

‘Only Electronic Viral Sequence’ May Be Available: DARPA Planned for Digital-Only Outbreaks

DARPA explicitly instructs its contractors to prepare for pandemics where no real virus is ever provided:

“Because we recognize the potential that during a pandemic outbreak only electronic viral sequence information may be available, we will work with Synthetic Genomics Vaccine, Inc. to optimize their protocols for the synthesis of error-free viral infectious clone genome for direct transfection.”

In plain terms, DARPA expected outbreaks where governments supply genome files instead of biological agents, requiring U.S. laboratories to fabricate the infectious agent themselves.

My own 2025 original research papers (The SARS-CoV-2 Reference Spike, and A 32% Human-Derived Mosaic in the In Silico-Assembled SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein) demonstrate that the Wuhan-Hu-1 (COVID-19 spike protein) spike was built digitally, assembled from bronchoalveolar lavage RNA via un-blinded metagenomic pipelines without human-sequence exclusion.

DARPA’s insistence that full pandemic response must function when “only electronic viral sequence information” exists directly affirms the core premise of Fleetwood’s findings: modern biodefense systems treat digital code as a virus, converting computational constructs into physical biological entities.

The FOIA document reveals that DARPA was funding workflows where a virus is born as data, and only afterward turned into an infectious clone—the same conceptual pathway through which the 32% human-derived mosaic spike emerged.

A Permanent ‘Thaw-and-Infect’ Cell Bank Ready for Unknown Viruses

DARPA required Duke to maintain a frozen library of high-density human, animal, and immortalized cell lines capable of instantly growing nearly any virus—even ones with unknown identity:

“We therefore propose to develop in TAI a ‘Thaw-and-Infect’ eukaryotic cell culture array comprised of cell typesilines competent for the isolation and high titer growth of a variety of known and unknown viral isolates.”

And:

The document proposes to “Identify optimal conditions to generate high density frozen cell stocks (up to 10 cells/mL) that can support virus propagation (up to 500 mL culture volume) 24-48 hours following recovery from cryostasis.”

This is a plug-and-play virus amplification factory—a universal propagation system for both natural and engineered pathogens.

Building Viruses From Scratch With Overlapping Oligos

DARPA contracted Synthetic Genomics (SGI)—now part of Codex DNA—to assemble influenza and other viruses by stitching together DNA fragments:

“Overlapping oligonucleotides… will be pooled, ligated and amplified… error corrected… assembled into linearized plasmid… and delivered… for virus rescue.”

An oligonucleotide is a short, synthetically manufactured piece of DNA or RNA.

This is identical to modern gain-of-function synthetic reconstruction workflows.

My A 32% Human-Derived Mosaic paper argues that the Wuhan-Hu-1 spike mirrors exactly the type of molecule produced by the patented “modular domain substitution” framework in Ralph Baric’s “Methods and compositions for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins” patent US9884895B2.

DARPA’s description of error-corrected assembly via overlapping oligos shows that U.S. programs were routinely generating error-free synthetic viral genomes, matching the precision and modular organization seen in my proposed 32% human-derived mosaic spike.

The Wuhan-Hu-1 spike’s highly ordered placement of human motifs across each pre-engineered domain becomes far more plausible in a system where infectious clones are built, not isolated.

DARPA Planned for ‘Weaponized, Highly Pathogenic’ Influenza Strains

DARPA openly references engineered flu strains as realistic scenarios:

“seasonal or a weaponized, highly pathogenic, influenza strain remains a significant global challenge…”

This appears under “Justification of Pathogens.”

My original research papers show that the spike protein’s functional domains align with synthetic engineering practices developed under NIH-funded coronavirus research.

DARPA’s explicit reference to weaponized strains demonstrates that the U.S. biodefense establishment assumes the existence of engineered pathogens requiring rapid reconstruction and countermeasure systems.

The Wuhan-Hu-1 spike—a modular chimera built from human and coronavirus segments, according to my analyses—aligns squarely with the design space DARPA anticipated.

BioNTech & Acuitas Were Already Embedded Before COVID

DARPA confirms that its mRNA countermeasure (vaccine) system was developed in partnership with BioNTech and Acuitas, the same companies behind the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine:

“We are advancing our RNA platform for a number of clinical applications including therapeutics and vaccines. Scalable GMP processes have been established for mRNA and lipid nanoparticle production in partnership with BioNTech GmbH and Acuitas Therapeutics.”

This was January 2020.

Before the first public COVID vaccine concepts.

My papers document that the in silico spike—never purified or isolated—became the global mRNA vaccine antigen.

DARPA’s acknowledgment that BioNTech and Acuitas were already integrated into pre-pandemic mRNA production pipelines shows that an infrastructure existed where any uploaded gene sequence could rapidly become an LNP-mRNA product.

This is precisely what happened: the computationally assembled Wuhan-Hu-1 spike instantly became the world’s vaccine antigen because the pandemic-response system was engineered to convert digital sequences into mRNA countermeasures.

DARPA’s Pre-Pandemic Use of Self-Amplifying RNA (SMART RNA Replicons)

DARPA’s program incorporates saRNA replicons:

“In addition to improvements in modified mRNA, we will also evaluate whether RNA replicons can increase peak Ab titer and extend Ab expression in vivo. SGVI has developed a self-amplifying RNA vector based on an alphavirus derived from the attenuated TC-83 strain of Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus that can overcome innate immune response shutdown (vector termed SMART: Synthetically Modified Alpha Replicon Technology). Whole body IVIS imaging of mice injected with either SMART or TC-83 replicon RNA expressing luciferase protein revealed that the SMART RNA expressed significantly more luciferase on days 1, 3 and 7 post-injection and remained higher than the TC-83 replicon until day 14. In addition, luciferase was detected at time points out to 28 days post SMART RNA injection demonstrating significant duration of expression.”

This predates public awareness of saRNA platforms.

DARPA’s 60-Day, 20,000-Dose Manufacturing Pipeline

DARPA describes its end-to-end plan:

“Across the 30-month program we will develop a fully-integrated end-to-end platform that can start with unknown samples from a viral outbreak and be prepared to produce an efficacious and safe CGMP medical countermeasure scalable to 20,000 doses within 60 days.”

The central claim of my original research is that the SARS-CoV-2 spike was produced via an in-silico-to-synthetic-biology pipeline rather than purified from nature.

DARPA’s 60-day manufacturing concept relies on exactly such digital-to-mRNA transformation workflows.

The fact that DARPA required a system capable of producing tens of thousands of doses from only sequence data validates the environment in which the Wuhan-Hu-1 spike emerged: a digital sequence was treated as a ready-made antigen.

Within days of Wu et al. uploading their computer-assembled spike to public databases, Moderna and Pfizer had already converted that digital construct into mRNA vaccine designs—treating an unpurified, in silico sequence as if it were a fully characterized biological antigen.

Bottom Line

This FOIA document exposes a U.S. military program designed to:

  • take a digital file
  • synthesize an infectious clone
  • propagate it in universal cell arrays
  • extract and computationally evolve antibodies
  • encode them in synthetic RNA
  • package them in LNPs
  • and mass-produce mRNA countermeasures in weeks

All before SARS-CoV-2 was publicly known.

When viewed side-by-side with Fleetwood’s research findings, the DARPA P3 document does not merely contextualize the mosaic spike — it confirms its plausibility, providing the operational framework in which a 32% human-derived chimeric spike built from digital assembly becomes not only possible, but expected.

Taken together, the evidence suggests the world may not have experienced a natural viral pandemic, but a global biological rollout built around a digitally assembled spike protein that became the foundation for diagnostics, modeling, and the mass vaccination campaign itself.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

32% of COVID ‘Spike Protein’ Matches Human Genes—Suggesting Either Contamination or Intentional Chimeric Design: BLASTp Analysis


One-third of the so-called SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was assembled from human genetic material, not viral RNA—raising urgent questions about the origins of the sequence used in mRNA vaccines.

3D print of a spike protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2—also known as 2019-nCoV, the virus that causes COVID-19. Spike proteins cover the surface of SARS-CoV-2 and enable the virus to enter and infect human cells. For more information, visit the NIH 3D Print Exchange at 3dprint.nih.gov. Credit: NIH/Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Image saturation, vibrace, color, and temperature have been altered in Canva Pro.

The most critical sequence in modern medical history—the “spike protein” of SARS-CoV-2—may never have existed in nature at all.

As a new research paper explains, A 32% Human-Derived Mosaic in the In Silico-Assembled SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein: Accidental Contaminant Misincorporation or Intentional Functional Chimeric Design?, the Wuhan “spike” was never isolated from a virus.

It was digitally stitched together—in silico (in a computer)—from fragments of RNA found in the lung fluid of one patient in China by Chinese researchers in early January 2020.

The genetic information was rapidly disseminated through databases such as GenBank and GISAID.

The foundational publication by Wu et al. in Nature in February 2020 represented the first peer-reviewed article presenting the full genome sequence of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), including its spike protein sequence.

That synthetic model then became the blueprint for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines injected into over five billion people worldwide.

This raises a critical question: if the Wuhan team’s “virus” was assembled from a sick man’s lung fluid, why does its defining spike protein contain extensive human genetic material—was this simply contamination from the patient’s own RNA, or evidence that the sequence was artificially constructed using human genes?

To identify the human components of that digital construct, I used the NCBI BLASTp tool—a government-hosted bioinformatics search engine that compares protein sequences against the entire global database of known organisms—to systematically test the Wuhan spike protein for matches to human proteins, revealing extensive alignments to human endogenous retroviruses and cellular genes that are absent in any bat or pangolin coronavirus.

The full research article, along with all six NCBI BLASTp run raw data files and their reproducible Request IDs, has been publicly archived on Zenodo (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17583428), ensuring complete transparency and independent verification of every alignment reported.

You can also read and download the research article below:

A 32% Human Derived Mosaic In The In Sil…724KB ∙ PDF file
Download

Key Findings

  • 32% of the spike protein—416 amino acids—matches human genetic material.
    The overlaps include sequences from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV-K, HERV-H, HERV-W) and cellular proteins linked to immune modulation, fusion, and intracellular trafficking.
  • No comparable overlaps exist in bat or pangolin coronaviruses.
    These human alignments appear only in the SARS-CoV-2 spike, not in its supposed animal precursors.
  • Six independent NCBI BLASTp runs confirm the findings.
    Each run produced reproducible, statistically significant human alignments—with probabilities of random occurrence as low as one in 10²⁰.
  • Critical overlaps occur in known functional domains:
    • HERV-K envelope homology in the S2 fusion region, which controls cell-to-cell syncytia.
    • HERV-H alignment at the furin cleavage site, already linked to a patented human gene (MSH3).
    • HERV-W (MSRV) match in the N-terminal domain, associated with neuroinflammation.
    • Additional matches with human lysosomal, mitochondrial, and zinc-finger proteins that govern energy metabolism and DNA regulation.

Why It Matters

If one-third of the spike’s code came from human sources, two explanations remain:

  1. Accidental misassembly—contamination from human RNA in the original Wuhan sample (BALF), which was never purified before computational assembly; or
  2. Intentional inclusion—deliberate use of human sequences to enhance infectivity, persistence, or immune modulation.

Both possibilities challenge the official story that the SARS-CoV-2 genome was a “naturally emerging” virus.

Independent Validation

Multiple clinical studies now confirm that these same HERV sequences are biologically active in COVID-19 patients:

  • Petrone et al., 2023: HERV-K and HERV-W upregulated in nasal mucosa; expression levels predict hospitalization.
  • Temerozo et al., 2022: HERV-K found in lung aspirates of deceased ICU patients.
  • Guo et al., 2022: HERV activation triggers interferon and inflammation via cGAS-STING.
  • Balestrieri et al., 2023: HERV-W linked to pediatric MIS-C and Kawasaki-like syndromes.
  • Wang et al., 2023: HERV-K expression correlates with pulmonary hypertension.
  • Wu et al., 2025: SARS-CoV-2 directly transactivates HERV-K, producing retrovirus-like particles that drive senescence and neurodegeneration.

Together, these findings corroborate that the “human” portions of the spike aren’t computational noise—they’re functionally active biological components.

Bottom Line

The official reference spike (YP_009724390.1)—used worldwide in vaccine development—is a digital, computationally assembled sequence derived from patient RNA rather than from a purified viral protein.

This sequence contains hundreds of human gene fragments precisely placed within key functional domains impacting viral fusion, immune evasion, and inflammation pathways.

While standard re-assembly of the original raw sequencing data (SRR10971381) excluding human reads has been performed, no published study has conducted an independent, viral-only de novo assembly focusing specifically on the spike region to test for potential human contaminant incorporation.

Thus, the origin of this 32% human mosaic—whether due to accidental laboratory contamination or intentional chimeric engineering—remains unresolved and requires targeted re-analysis.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

U.S., South Korea Lab-Engineer Chimeric Bird Flu Virus 100% Fatal in Mammals, Infects Human Blood Cells, Attacks Brain: Journal ‘Science Advances’


Study confirms lab-made hybrid H5N1 strain invades immune cells, replicates in human blood, spreads to the brain, and kills every mammal tested.

A September Science Advances paper confirms that U.S. and South Korean researchers have engineered a “Frankenstein” chimeric bird flu virus that is said to be 100% fatal in mammals, infect human immune cells, and spread throughout the body—including into the brain.

The international team—led by Young Ki Choi of the Korea Virus Research Institute and Richard J. Webby of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee—rebuilt and genetically modified the North American H5N1 avian influenza strain A/Lesser Scaup/Georgia/W22-145E/2022 (GA/W22-145E/22).

The Korean government-funded experiments raise national security concerns, as Congress, the White House, the Department of Energy, the FBI, and the CIA have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely the result of lab-engineered pathogen manipulation.

Are governments intentionally or accidentally creating the next pandemic?

A Lab-Made Chimera

The new bird flu virus wasn’t natural.

The U.S. and South Korean team used an eight-plasmid reverse-genetics system, a gain-of-function technique that allows scientists to synthesize an entire virus genome from DNA plasmids, assemble it inside human and animal cells, and recover a fully infectious pathogen.

“The eight gene segments of A/Lesser Scaup/Georgia/W22-145E/2022 (GA/W22-145E/22) (NCBI accession nos. OP470788, OP470787, OP470786, OP470785, OP470784, OP470783, OP470782, and OP470781), genes were synthesized, and A/Common Teal/Korea/W811/2021 (KR/W811/21) (GISAID accession nos. EPI1950412, EPI1950413, EPI1950414, EPI1950415, EPI1950416, EPI1950417, EPI1950418, and EPI1950419) were amplified and cloned into the pHW2000 plasmid vector using a plasmid-based RG system),” the authors explained.

“To evaluate the PB2I478V and NPN450S substitution, the GA/W22-145E/22- PB2478V, GA/W22-145E/22-NP450S, and GA/W22-145E/22-PB2478V/ NP450S viruses were generated by site-directed mutagenesis (Invitrogen, A13282). Recombinant GA/W22-145E/22, KR/W811/21, GA/ W22-145E/22-PB2478V, GA/W22-145E/22-NP450S, and GA/W22- 145E/22-PB2478V/NP450S viruses were generated using an eight plasmid RG system, as previously described.”

The paper itself explains that the North American H5N1 lineage is already a reassortant—a genetic mix of Eurasian and North American bird flu viruses:

“The reassortment of EA 2.3.4.4b H5N1 viruses with North American Low Pathogenicity Avian Influenza (LPAI) viruses led to the emergence of previously unidentified genotypes containing PB2, PB1, PA, and NP segments of NAm origin”

In other words, the starting material was a hybrid of two separate influenza families.

This hybrid genome formed the basis for further laboratory engineering.

Researchers then introduced new synthetic mutations to alter the virus’s behavior—creating a true chimera: a recombinant virus stitched together from multiple genetic sources and enhanced in the lab.

The Engineered Mutations & What They Did

The researchers focused on two specific genetic changes—PB2-478I and NP-450N—that together made the virus far more aggressive, able to infect a wider range of cells, and capable of spreading throughout the body instead of staying in the lungs.

These two mutations were placed in the virus deliberately using genetic engineering tools.

They are each said to affect a different part of the virus’s internal machinery:

  • PB2-478I is a mutation in the polymerase gene—the enzyme complex the virus uses to copy its RNA. This particular spot (called the cap-binding domain) helps the virus hijack a human cell’s own messages to start manufacturing more virus.
    → In plain terms: this change let the virus steal the host cell’s genetic “on switch” more efficiently, speeding up replication inside any cell it entered.
  • NP-450N is a mutation in the nucleoprotein, which wraps and protects the viral genome and helps it move in and out of the cell nucleus.
    → This change made the virus better at copying and transporting its genetic material, meaning each infected cell could pump out more viral particles before dying.

When both mutations were present together, the results were extreme.

The virus showed what scientists call increased host-cell tropism—meaning it could infect many different kinds of cells and tissues, not just the respiratory tract.

It multiplied inside immune cells (T cells, B cells, macrophages, and monocytes), spread through the bloodstream, crossed into organs, and even invaded the brain.

“PB2-478I and NP-450N function synergistically to enhance polymerase activity, vRNA synthesis, and replication efficiency … across multiple host species,” the authors wrote.

When the same virus was “fixed” by reversing those mutations back to their original, non-aggressive forms (PB2-478V and NP-450S), the difference was striking:
the virus stopped spreading through the body, stayed confined to the lungs, and none of the test animals died.

“Ferrets infected with the double mutant … survived the study period, indicating significantly reduced virulence,” the paper confirmed.

The authors also warned that these two mutations—PB2-478I and NP-450N—are now showing up in the wild.

100% Fatal in Mammals

All 24 ferrets infected with the engineered GA/W22-145E/22 strain died within seven days, while those given the Eurasian comparison strain survived the full 14-day study.

“All ferrets infected with GA/W22-145E/22 succumbed to infection by 7 days postinfection,” the study reads.

Post-mortem analysis showed viral replication in nearly every organ—including lungs, liver, spleen, kidneys, intestines, lymph nodes, and brain—with viral RNA reaching deep cortical tissue by day 4.

Infecting Human Blood Cells

In follow-up tests, the engineered chimera replicated efficiently in human peripheral-blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and THP-1 monocytes, proving it could infect human immune cells directly:

“[H]uman peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) infected with GA/W22-145E/22 showed significantly greater replication evidenced by higher cRNA, mRNA, and vRNA levels than those infected with KR/W811/21.”

This finding means the virus can use the body’s own immune system to amplify and disseminate—an unusual and hazardous feature for influenza.

Neuroinvasion: Virus Found in the Brain

Microscopic imaging revealed viral RNA spreading beyond the olfactory bulb into the cortex, confirming brain infection:

“Viral RNA signals extended beyond the olfactory bulb into the cortex … indicating extensive cerebral replication.”

Immune-cell markers inside brain tissue showed that the virus used infiltrating immune cells as carriers to breach the blood–brain barrier.

A Frankenstein-Style Gain-of-Function Virus

In summary, the project:

  • Reconstructed an influenza genome from plasmids,
  • Mixed Eurasian and North American gene segments,
  • Inserted new mutations that amplified polymerase activity and virulence, and
  • Demonstrated human-cell infection, systemic dissemination, and neuroinvasion.

That combination fits the scientific definition of a chimeric gain-of-function virus—a deliberately engineered hybrid designed to exhibit new, more dangerous traits.

Bottom Line

The Science Advances paper documents the deliberate construction of a lab-made chimeric H5N1 “Frankenstein” virus that:

  • Killed 100% of mammals tested,
  • Infected and replicated in human blood cells,
  • Spread systemically through immune cells, and
  • Invaded the brain.

The authors themselves conclude that these engineered mutations “drive immune cell–mediated systemic spread, neuroinvasion, and potential vertical transmission.”

In plain terms: this was not natural evolution—it was the intentional creation of a cross-species, human-cell-infecting, mammal-lethal hybrid virus inside a laboratory, presented under the banner of “pandemic preparedness.”

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

World’s Largest Vaccine Maker to Develop New $16 Million AI-Optimized ‘Disease X’ Pandemic Bird Flu Jab Using Insect DNA


Serum Institute of India partners with CEPI and Houston Methodist to generate prototype vaccine targeting H5N1 avian influenza within 100 days’ time.

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) is collaborating with the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, Serum Institute of India (SII), and Houston Methodist to develop a new pandemic vaccine with artificial intelligence (AI) that targets H5N1 avian influenza “bird flu,” according to a CEPI press release.

CEPI was launched at Davos in 2017 by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and several world governments.

SII supplies vaccines to more than 170 countries and is “well known for its rapid response work during infectious disease outbreaks.”

The new project will be supported by up to $16.4 million.

The effort is meant to “boost pandemic response preparedness” for bird flu and serve “as a prototype for a potential Disease X—an as-yet-unknown pathogen with pandemic potential.”

The new avian flu jab will utilize a ‘baculovirus’ vaccine platform, a system that uses genetically modified baculoviruses (DNA viruses that infect insects, especially their larval stages) to produce recombinant proteins in insect cells.

SII will “produce and compare two H5 antigens for a recombinant protein vaccine: a wild-type and an AI-optimised, broad-spectrum H5 antigen designed by scientists at Houston Methodist Research Institute.”

The vaccine is supposed to work “across multiple strains of H5 viruses, rather than just one.”

CEPI claims this makes the new injection “particularly suited for use in unpredictable outbreak situations.”

The idea is to accomplish “a fast response to a future pandemic threat.”

The work will also “serve as proof of concept for using AI to design vaccine antigens,” proteins said to trigger an immune response.

The new bird flu vaccine will be “designed to power up global readiness to tackle pandemic threats, from early-stage vaccine development through to global manufacture and supply,” said CEPI CEO Dr. Richard Hatchett.

“With a potential pandemic influenza vaccine candidate already in development on a validated platform, and with a vaccine manufacturing juggernaut ready to go, the world’s disease defences will be poised to respond swiftly with new vaccines, potentially in 100 days, should a flu virus erupt into a potentially deadly and fast-spreading human pandemic.”

The goal is for the jabs to be “quickly created.”

SII and CEPI see their new bird flu jab as an “ideal candidate for faster responses against potential pandemic diseases.”

“This aligns with CEPI’s 100 Days Mission—a goal embraced by leaders of the G7 and G20 to accelerate vaccine development to within 100 days of identifying a pandemic threat,” the press release reads.

SII CEO Adar Poonawalla said the new platform “gives us the ability to rapidly develop and produce vaccines for emerging threats. This project will test that readiness in real terms, reinforcing our commitment to pandemic preparedness. The learnings will not only support faster response times but also ensure that effective vaccines can reach vulnerable populations without delay.”

The project will also leverage the expertise of the U.K.’s Francis Crick Institute for testing, according to the press release:

“The project will also leverage the expertise of CEPI’s Preclinical Model Network and Centralized Laboratory Network members—the UK Health Security Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—alongside the Francis Crick Institute, to conduct key testing activities to demonstrate that the wild-type and AI-optimised H5 vaccines are fit for purpose.”

Trump Admin Ties to Francis Crick Institute

Back in February, this website reported that the CDC and FDA were “actively participating” in virtual meetings with the World Health Organization (WHO) at the Crick Worldwide Influenza Center in London, which is part of the Francis Crick Institute.

The top U.S. health agencies were participating with the WHO despite President Donald Trump signing an executive order on January 20, 2025 that was supposed to officially withdraw the United States from the WHO.

That order explicitly commanded to “recall and reassign United States Government personnel or contractors working in any capacity with the WHO.”

But the Trump administration made concessions for influenza bird flu efforts, signaling its role in orchestrating another pandemic.

President Trump has since announced the development of a “next-generation, universal vaccine platform” called ‘Generation Gold Standard’ that will focus on bird flu jab creation.

Gold Standard represents the institutionalization of a staggering conflict of interest.

NIAID Director Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger—who now oversees U.S. taxpayer-funded gain-of-function experiments creating new bird-flu viruses—is also a named inventor on the federal patent for the program’s beta-propiolactone (BPL)-inactivated “universal” bird flu vaccine at the center of Gold Standard.

This is despite BPL being a known carcinogen classified as a ‘Group 1B’ substance in Europe and ‘Group 2B’ in the U.S.

In other words, the same official directing the creation of potentially pandemic-causing bird flu pathogens is positioned to personally profit from the vaccine meant to counter them, raising profound national-security, informed-consent, and conflict-of-interest concerns at the very heart of America’s pandemic-preparedness system.

Dr. Redfield’s 2022 Bird Flu Warning

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield has predicted that a bird flu pandemic will be much worse than COVID.

Dr. Redfield expects a bird flu pandemic to “have significant mortality, in the ten to fifteen percent range.”

“I don’t believe [COVID] is the ‘great pandemic,’” he said in a March 2022 interview. “I believe the great pandemic is still in the future. And that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic from man. It’s going to have significant mortality, in the ten to fifteen percent range. It’s going to be trouble. And we should get prepared for it.”

Redfield emphasized the danger of this coming bird flu pandemic.

“I do believe that the pandemic risk is of greater risk to the national security of the United States than Korea, China, Russia, [and] Iran. And we ought to start investing proportional to that national security risk so we’re prepared. Unfortunately, we’re not more prepared today than we were when the [COVID] pandemic hit when I was CDC director. And we need to make that proportional investment so that we are prepared.”

Taken together, the CEPI-Gates-WEF partnership, the Trump administration’s Gold Standard program, and NIAID’s ongoing gain-of-function work form a seamless triad of power—where global health bureaucrats, government scientists, and private vaccine empires converge under the banner of “preparedness,” using taxpayer money and AI-driven biotechnologies to design both the next outbreak and the product to follow it.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

AI Bioweapon Blueprints Could Be Ordered Through DNA Vendors—Screening Failed 75% of the Time: Journal ‘Science’


Microsoft-led study shows AI can design tens of thousands of toxin variants—including ricin and botulinum—that DNA company safety checks don’t catch, raising fears they could be purchased undetected.

A peer-reviewed Science study has revealed that artificial intelligence (AI) can design lethal toxin blueprints that slip past the safety systems used by DNA vendors—the very safeguards intended to stop bad actors from ordering genetic material for bioweapons.

Science published an article explaining the study’s findings, confirming: “DNA vendors typically use screening software to flag sequences that might be used to cause harm. But the researchers report that this software failed to catch many of their AI-designed genes—one tool missed more than 75% of the potential toxins.”

In simple terms, if someone today submitted an order to a gene synthesis company for one of these AI-designed toxin sequences, the system that’s supposed to block it would likely approve it.

The top gene synthesis companies with a major U.S. presence include Twist Bioscience, Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), GenScript, Thermo Fisher Scientific’s GeneArt division, Azenta/Genewiz, ATUM (formerly DNA2.0), and Eurofins Genomics.

Twist Bioscience Spins ‘Leadership’ After Embarrassing Failure

In the wake of the Science revelations, one of the largest U.S. DNA synthesis companies, Twist Bioscience, rushed out a press release attempting to frame the debacle as proof of its “leadership” in biosecurity.

The company admitted the study was a “first-of-its-kind” red-team exercise showing that AI-designed toxins escaped detection by standard biosecurity screening software.

But instead of highlighting the alarming 75% failure rate, Twist described its role as “a proactive approach to safeguard public health, providing an example for other industries to follow.”

CEO Emily Leproust tried to reassure investors, insisting: “For known proteins and sequences, industry best practices for biosecurity screening are robust and highly effective. However, as AI capabilities evolve, screening practices must evolve just as quickly.”

That is the tell.

These screening systems only work against already-known toxins—the very ones that AI is now mutating into endless new forms.

In other words, the locks on the door are sturdy only if the burglar is polite enough to knock with a familiar key.

Microsoft’s own chief scientist Eric Horvitz admitted the problem plainly: “AI advances are fueling breakthroughs in biology and medicine, yet with new power comes the responsibility for vigilance and thoughtful risk management.”

The subtext is clear—these are weapons-grade blueprints, and the systems meant to stop them have failed.

Twist wants the public to believe that private “collaboration” with tech giants is enough to protect the world.

But the hard fact, buried beneath their press release optimism, is that the same study they co-authored proved their industry’s defenses could not prevent lethal toxin sequences from slipping through.

Instead of taking accountability, Twist shifted the narrative to “responsible innovation,” downplaying the reality that thousands of bioweapon blueprints could still be ordered undetected today.

How the Experiment Worked

The Science study was led by Microsoft bioengineer Bruce Wittmann.

“Wittmann and his Microsoft colleagues wanted to know what would happen if they ordered the DNA sequences that code for these proteins from companies that synthesize nucleic acids,” the article explains.

They designed more than 70,000 DNA sequences that mimicked notorious toxins like ricin, botulinum, and Shiga.

“Computer models suggested that at least some of these alternatives would also be toxic.”

Wittmann admitted: “The knowledge that I had access to, and stewardship over these proteins was, on a human level, a notable burden.”

Translation: with only AI tools, a single research team generated tens of thousands of potential bioweapon recipes—knowing some could be lethal if produced.

The Screening Failure

The group then tested whether DNA companies’ order-screening software would flag these toxin blueprints.

The results were devastating.

“The tools failed to flag many of these sequences as problematic. Their performance varied widely. One tool flagged just 23% of the sequences.”

That means nearly 8 out of 10 AI-engineered poisons could have been ordered and delivered without anyone noticing.

Even the most effective tool caught just 70%.

“One of the screening tools flagged 70% of the sequences, and its developer chose not to make any changes to improve the software.”

The others took months to quietly patch their systems.

“We were all very quiet about it,” said one expert quoted in the paper.

The ‘Fix’—But Still Failing

After upgrades, detection improved but remained incomplete.

“The systems flagged 72% of Wittmann’s AI-generated sequences, on average, including 97% of the sequences that models rated most likely to generate toxins.”

But that still leaves thousands of engineered toxin blueprints invisible to safeguards.

Even a 3% failure rate equals over 2,000 AI-generated poison sequences slipping through undetected.

A Gaping Hole in the Supply Chain

Even more alarming, the article confirms: “Some DNA vendors, accounting for perhaps 20% of the market, don’t screen their orders at all.”

That means nearly a quarter of global synthetic DNA sellers may approve any order, no questions asked.

Expert Warnings

Jaime Yassif of the Nuclear Threat Initiative said: “It’s just the beginning. AI capabilities are going to evolve and be able to design more and more complex living systems, and our DNA synthesis screening capabilities are going to have to continue to evolve to keep up with that.”

In other words: AI is moving faster than the safeguards.

Stanford researcher Drew Endy went further: “I wish people would wake up a little bit… Today, nations are accusing one another of having offensive bioweapons programs… This is the historical pattern that happened 100 years ago that led to actual bioweapons programs. We have to de-escalate this.”

That’s a blunt warning that this is not just about terrorists—it’s about governments running clandestine bioweapons labs.

What It Means

The authors did not physically manufacture the toxins.

“That would have required ordering the genes from DNA vendors and inserting them into bacteria or yeast to produce the proteins of interest. And doing so could be considered a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention,” the article explains.

But the point is clear: if Microsoft researchers could design and slip tens of thousands of toxin blueprints past DNA vendor safeguards, others could too—and they might not stop at the design stage.

Bottom Line

The Science paper proves the locks on the door of biosecurity are broken.

  • AI can mass-generate toxin blueprints.
  • DNA vendors’ screening software fails up to 75% of the time.
  • Some companies don’t screen orders at all.

The implications are stark: ordering DNA for a custom-made bioweapon may already be possible through legitimate commercial suppliers, and the public would never know until it was too late.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

AI’s Frankenstein Phages: Designer Viruses to Slay Bacteria – But What If They Turn on Us All?


Oh, brother, if there’s one thing that screams “we never learn” louder than a lab leak cover-up, it’s the mad scientists firing up AI to cook up brand-new viruses designed to hunt bacteria like microscopic terminators – phages so novel they’ve never existed in nature, promising to zap superbugs but risking a rogue evolution that could spell doom for humanity. We’re talking September 2025 breakthroughs where bioengineers used generative AI to dream up synthetic bacteriophage genomes, slapped them into bacteria, and watched the critters replicate and kill E. coli in lab dishes like it’s no big deal. This isn’t sci-fi; it’s happening now, with revelations warning of “extreme caution” as these AI-born killers could mutate beyond control, turning a “cure” into a curse. America First means slapping the brakes on this hubris before it bites us – because labs are “secure” until they’re not, and playing God with viruses is a gamble we can’t afford.

The AI Phage Revolution: From Code to Killer

It all kicked off with advancements in 2023-2024, but the real bombshell dropped in September 2025 when researchers announced the world’s first fully AI-designed bacteriophages – viruses that infect and destroy bacteria – capable of replicating and slaying resistant strains like E. coli in tests. These aren’t tweaks to existing phages; they’re entirely new creations, with AI proposing genetic codes that scientists synthesized and inserted into host cells, watching the viruses assemble, burst out, and infect targets.

How does it work? AI analyzes massive datasets of phage genomes – like the 10,000 sequenced by 2024 – to predict sequences that bind to specific bacteria, then generates novel ones that nature never made. Once designed, labs synthesize the DNA, insert it into bacteria, and let the phages self-assemble, replicating to form armies that latch onto targets, inject their code, and burst the cells open – a precision kill without antibiotics’ broad wipeout. Effectiveness? Lab tests from September 2025 showed these AI phages wiping out resistant E. coli strains in hours, with success rates over 90% in controlled settings.

The Dark Side: Evolution Risks and Unintended Mayhem

But here’s the nightmare fuel – these designer viruses are uncharted territory, and we have zero clue how they’ll evolve once unleashed. Revelations from genome pioneers in September 2025 warn of “extreme caution,” noting that AI phages could mutate in the wild, jumping hosts or turning virulent like a bad sci-fi plague. Unlike natural phages that co-evolved with bacteria over eons, these lab-born beasts lack those checks – a single tweak could let them infect humans or animals, sparking outbreaks we can’t predict. Think COVID’s origins: Man-made viruses don’t play by nature’s rules, and with phages replicating in minutes, evolution could spin out of control faster than you can say “gain-of-function.

“Worse, they’re being touted as “precision medicine” for superbugs, but revelations from a November 25, 2024, study show AI tools already predicting phage efficacy for E. coli with 85% accuracy, paving the way for widespread use. By May 22, 2025, startups were deploying AI-designed lysins – proteins from phages that punch holes in bacterial walls – to kill multidrug-resistant infections, but full phages amp the risk – they could spread unchecked, mutating to target beneficial bacteria or worse.

Lab Safety: “Secure” Until It’s Not

Sure, these labs are “as safe as possible” – BSL-3 or 4 levels with airlocks, suits, and protocols – but revelations from a January 6, 2025, real-world study on adverse events remind us accidents happen, like the 2023 Wuhan whispers or U.S. lab mishaps in 2022 that released engineered bugs. No containment is foolproof – human error, earthquakes, or sabotage could release these AI phages, and once out, they’re self-replicating time bombs. A 2020 commentary warned of “postantibiotic era” risks, but AI speeds it up, with no way to “recall” a rogue virus. The left’s “trust the science” mantra rings hollow here – we never learn from past lab leaks, and these viruses put all humanity on the line.

America First rejects this hubris – why risk humanity for “designer” fixes when natural phages already exist? Polls from August 2025 show 58% of Americans distrust AI in biotech, with 65% fearing lab leaks. We never learn – from COVID to this – and it’s time to pull the plug before the monsters escape.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Pfizer and Moderna Distract With Reverse Transcription Debate at ACIP Meeting—Plasmid DNA Integration Is the Real Threat


The reverse transcription debate is a decoy, while the real risk is DNA fragments built to integrate into your genome.

At the recent ACIP meeting, Dr. Evelyn Griffin rightly raised the alarm about mRNA reverse transcription—pointing to published studies showing nucleic acids in Pfizer’s mRNA COVID-19 shot can be integrated into human DNA, namely human liver cells under lab settings.

But Pfizer’s Dr. Kayvon Modjarrad quickly dismissed the concern:

“RNA cannot reverse transcribe to DNA [because that] requires a set of molecules and enzymes that don’t exist in humans and are largely reserved for retroviruses.”

Moderna chimed in, citing FDA reviews of “hundreds of millions” of doses and claiming “no indication of genotoxicity.”

The public was left thinking: case closed.

But this article will show that the real risk isn’t rare reverse transcription at all—it’s the integration of plasmid DNA contaminants into the human genome, a pathway every cell in the body is equipped to carry out.

Pfizer and Moderna are technically wrong that reverse transcription “can’t happen,” but they also know it’s rare—so they lean on that half-truth to keep the spotlight off plasmid DNA integration, which is far more likely and far more dangerous.

It’s a sleight of hand—a bait-and-switch.

Emergency room director Dr. Richard Bartlett told this website that the real scandal isn’t reverse transcription at all, but the hidden plasmid DNA contamination that provides the mechanism for Pfizer’s genetic code to be incorporated into human DNA and causes disease.

“Pfizer and Moderna are distracting from the smoking gun of plasmid DNA contamination in their COVID-19 mRNA shots,” Dr. Bartlett said. “In 2022, investigators worked with the information they had, but that information was not complete. The fact that Pfizer’s genetic code was incorporated into human host DNA is irrefutable. And the most likely mechanism that it got there is plasmid DNA, not mRNA reverse transcription. Pfizer knows this. Moderna knows this. They hid the damning information from investigators and doctors in 2022. That is why investigators misinterpreted DNA integration as reverse transcription. I am convinced that Pfizer’s genetic code found in human cells did not come from the mRNA, but from plasmid DNA contamination. This is catastrophic.”

You can watch a clip of the exchange, posted by Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, below:

The Bait-and-Switch

This is the inside baseball play: Pfizer and Moderna want the debate stuck on reverse transcription.

Why?

Because they can plausibly argue it’s rare.

The enzyme required for reverse transcription—LINE-1—is typically absent from the vast majority of human cells, with only modest expression detected in specialized cell types like epithelial cells, and higher activity mainly in tumors and with aging.

That makes reverse transcription possible, but not systemic.

They know this, and they exploit it.

But focusing there keeps eyes off the much bigger danger.

The study Dr. Griffin cited made the best assumption it could with the cherry-picked information the manufacturers released—but what it could not account for, because Pfizer and Moderna hid the evidence and still refuse to admit it, is the smoking gun: plasmid DNA contamination, the very mechanism by which foreign DNA can be incorporated into the human genome after injection, kept from researchers and the public and denying true informed consent.

Plasmids are routinely used in the industry to incorporate foreign DNA into host DNA.

The Bigger Threat: Plasmid DNA Integration

The COVID-19 mRNA shots are manufactured using DNA plasmids—the very genetic engineering tools designed to insert code into genomes.

By definition, plasmids are integration-competent.

They can stitch themselves into human DNA.

Independent labs have confirmed that Pfizer’s vials contain toxic levels of plasmid DNA.

  • A French government-funded study led by Didier Raoult (Nov 2024) found 5,160 ng of plasmid DNA per dose—516 times higher than the FDA/EMA safety limit.
  • A December 2024 peer-reviewed paper in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law found 227–334% more DNA contamination than WHO limits, including the cancer-linked SV40 promoter/enhancer.
  • A September 2025 peer-reviewed study in Autoimmunityconfirmed both Pfizer and Moderna’s shots are contaminated with billions to hundreds of billions of DNA fragments per dose—up to 627 times higher than FDA/WHO limits—with Pfizer uniquely carrying the SV40 promoter-enhancer, a cancer-linked sequence designed to drive foreign DNA into human cell nuclei.

This isn’t speculation.

The contamination is proven.

What’s Inside Pfizer’s Plasmid

Pfizer’s plasmid doesn’t just contain bacterial DNA and the SV40 cancer-promoting gene sequence.

It also carries three human gene fragments used as regulatory elements:

  • α-globin (blood/cardiovascular): regulates red blood cell gene expression.
  • AES/TLE5 (immune): regulates transcriptional control in immune pathways.
  • MT-RNR1 (neurological/mitochondrial): tied to mitochondrial function and neurological disorders.

An October 2023 Nature npj Vaccines paper confirmed these sequences are part of Pfizer’s design:

“Pfizer-BioNTech’s 5’ UTR sequence is derived from the human hemoglobin α-globin (HBA1) gene… For the 3’ UTR, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine combines one segment from a human mRNA encoding amino-terminal enhancer of split (AES) and another from mitochondrial 12 S rRNA (mtRNR1).”

These are not inert.

They are regulatory DNA codes.

Alignment With the Injury Signal

Here’s where it gets damning.

Two independent safety reviews (2022, 2024) found that serious adverse events after Pfizer’s mRNA shot cluster into three categories:

  • Cardiac/blood: myocarditis, clotting, thrombocytopenia.
  • Immune: anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, autoimmune flares.
  • Neurological: Guillain–Barré, seizures, facial paralysis.

Pfizer’s own 5.3.6 safety report confirms the same triad:

  • 25,957 neurological events
  • 1,050 immune/autoimmune cases
  • 932 blood/hematological disorders

Now line it up:

  • Plasmid fragment: α-globin → blood
  • Plasmid fragment: AES/TLE5 → immune
  • Plasmid fragment: MT-RNR1 → neurological

The plasmid blueprint and the injury clusters align perfectly—making the case plain without muddying the waters with debates over mRNA reverse transcription.

In other words, the match between Pfizer’s plasmid design and the injury clusters is exact, and it stands on its own—no need to get lost in the reverse transcription smokescreen.

Every Cell Has the Machinery

Unlike reverse transcription, which relies on rare LINE-1 enzymes, plasmid DNA doesn’t need anything special.

Every human cell carries DNA repair systems—like Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ)—that can integrate foreign DNA into chromosomes.

These pathways are active everywhere because they’re required for basic genome maintenance.

That means plasmid integration is not rare.

It’s possible in virtually every cell.

The Silence Is Deafening

Pfizer and Moderna keep ACIP fixated on reverse transcription—a long shot they can safely dismiss—while saying nothing about plasmid DNA contamination, which is systemic and inescapable.

And yet their own blueprint, their own fragments, and their own safety data all point to the same conclusion: integration risk matches the injury signal.

Bottom Line

  • Reverse transcription is real but rare.
  • Plasmid DNA integration is universal—all cells have the machinery.
  • Pfizer’s plasmid carries human DNA fragments regulating blood, immune, and neurological systems.
  • Those are the exact systems showing up in serious vaccine injuries, confirmed by independent reviews and Pfizer’s own report.

This is not coincidence—it’s alignment.

The unavoidable question is whether Pfizer’s plasmid design itself is driving the blood, immune, and neurological injuries dominating the safety signal.

Until regulators investigate, the only responsible course is to pull these shots from the market.

That’s why the focus must shift off the apparently rare possibility of mRNA reverse transcription and onto the far greater danger—plasmid DNA integration—a risk built into every cell and written into Pfizer’s own blueprint.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: