The Pekova analysis essentially overcomes any criticism of the Speicher analysis by providing the necessary within-experiment replication. This is further replicated by Kaemmerer in this very thorough analysis:
There is no way back for the regulators here. The DNA lacing is now firmly established. The next phase will be show that this was not an accident, and it wasn't an accident in Gardasil.
I remember about 2 years ago an eye drop was taken off the market by the FDA because it harmed under 100 people. I think we can all agree that something nefarious is going on behind the scenes. It astounds me that not even a moratorium has been instituted to ensure safety. They can’t even be bothered to check safety while it’s still being injected into people, including children? The whole thing is totally unbelievable. Is it because of the wealthy investments into the mRNA technology as they’re already using it in different shots? Who in fact is leading the way of this dangerous irresponsible denial of harms and future harms? Even individual governments are following some mysterious lead. I know the Canadian government just threw it back to the manufactures for answers. Duh. Surely, they’re not that dense. We’re talking about an industry who are known thugs who pay large fines for lying and being dishonest about their trials.
I am hopeful that one day soon the house of cards will come tumbling down but it won’t be without a fight. Doctors, scientists fear for their careers if they dare speak out as has been observed with others. Even Phillip Buckhaults has folded his tent after being attacked as an anti vaxxer. I’m hoping the individuals who have proven that the DNA contamination exists in huge numbers will form an alliance perhaps allowing others to come forward.
Remember in Australia health professionals are muzzled by APHRA TGA COLLEGES & Professional bodies. And sadly TNI has flagged misinfo disinfo re medications in MSM. Cabinet confidentiality has also ensured 20 years of hidden facts with National Cabinet included in secrecy
It seems to me that for many decades now Big Pharma has been acting like a Colombian Drug Cartel, with total impunity for law and order and ensuring the protection of its cartels, by corrupting politicians worldwide into financially rewarding web.
It is clear to even a casual observer like myself, that the similarities between the way that Big Pharma and the illegal drug cartels co-opt and corrupt regulators and politicians is all but identical.
It necessarily follows that our approach and attitude to Big Pharma should be exactly the same as it is to the drug cartels.
The people at the top of these organisations are evil. The depths their malfeasance will plunge is only conditioned by the size of the financial honey pot at the bottom.
Like the drug cartels, they have no care for the health, safety and wellbeing of the public in their midst, and to be honest, they never did.
Personally I believe the only way that a change might occur, is if an off shoot of DOGE is set up to dismantle the corruption within the medical drug establishment, and those at the top of these institutions are hunted down in the same way that the drug barons are hunted and imprisoned for the same duration as their cartels cousins.
Only when the freedom and liberty of the Big Pharma Barons is effected by long term jail sentences, might we see a change in this industry to the benefit of the public that they are deemed to serve.
Perfectly articulated. I’m currently drafting an article that makes similar points. Massive fines are nowhere near enough to deter this criminal behaviour. Individuals must be held accountable.
The pandemic highlighted the enormous problem of fast track approvals where limited results from manufacturers usually Big Pharma trials can corrupt approval decisions. At least large influential regulators (FFA EMA TGA MHRA) need to make independant regulator controlled trials with NO CONFLICTS IF INTEREST. Public service always needs to be fearless and free of favours if the people are to be served well
Massive DNA contamination across the world has started with FDA not doing its research without fear and favour
I got this interesting reply from ChatGPT to my question
Given the imperative of finding best solutions for large populations- would it be more effective if all formal trials were performed by regulators rather than drug companies with a percentage pay back of price of marketed drug
Answer:
Yes, having regulators conduct formal drug trials instead of pharmaceutical companies, with a percentage payback model, could lead to more effective, unbiased, and cost-efficient solutions for large populations. Here’s why:
Advantages of Regulator-Led Trials
1. Unbiased Results
• Currently, pharmaceutical companies fund their own trials, leading to potential biases in study design, patient selection, and data reporting.
• Regulators (e.g., TGA, FDA, EMA) conducting trials would ensure neutral assessments of efficacy and safety.
2. Focus on Public Health Over Profit
• Drug companies prioritize marketable treatments, often focusing on high-profit drugs rather than the most effective or cheapest solutions.
• Regulatory-led trials could prioritize the best options for population health, including repurposed generics or low-cost alternatives.
3. Comparative Effectiveness Studies
• Instead of relying on placebo-controlled trials alone, regulators could conduct comparative trials between new and existing treatments.
• This ensures that only the most effective drugs reach the market, preventing overpriced, marginally effective treatments.
4. Faster & More Efficient Drug Approvals
• Regulator-led trials could streamline data collection and reduce duplication (since companies run separate trials in multiple countries).
• A centralized trial system could speed up drug availability for public health crises.
5. Cost Savings & Payback Model
• Drug companies would still profit, but they would pay a percentage of their revenue back to fund future public trials.
• This would shift the burden of funding from taxpayers to companies who benefit from approvals.
Challenges & Considerations
• Pharma Resistance: Companies may resist giving up control over trials, fearing tighter regulatory oversight.
• Regulatory Capacity: Agencies would need more funding & expertise to conduct large-scale trials.
• IP & Innovation Concerns: Some argue companies drive innovation due to profit incentives, but a public trial system could still reward innovation while ensuring fairness.
Real-World Examples
• UK RECOVERY Trial (COVID-19):
• A government-led trial that rapidly identified effective treatments (dexamethasone, tocilizumab) at low cost.
• NIH-led Trials in the U.S.:
• The NIH has run trials for repurposed drugs, though most funding still comes from industry.
Conclusion
A regulator-led, payback-funded trial system would likely lead to:
✔ Faster, cheaper, and fairer access to effective treatments
✔ More rigorous, unbiased data on drug effectiveness
✔ Lower costs for governments & taxpayers
This model could revolutionize medicine approval by ensuring public interest comes first, not corporate profits. Would you like to explore how this could be implemented in Australia or globally?
The Pekova analysis essentially overcomes any criticism of the Speicher analysis by providing the necessary within-experiment replication. This is further replicated by Kaemmerer in this very thorough analysis:
https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/biontech-rna-based-covid-19-injections-contain-large-amounts-of-residual-dna-including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/
There is no way back for the regulators here. The DNA lacing is now firmly established. The next phase will be show that this was not an accident, and it wasn't an accident in Gardasil.
Yeeessss!
I remember about 2 years ago an eye drop was taken off the market by the FDA because it harmed under 100 people. I think we can all agree that something nefarious is going on behind the scenes. It astounds me that not even a moratorium has been instituted to ensure safety. They can’t even be bothered to check safety while it’s still being injected into people, including children? The whole thing is totally unbelievable. Is it because of the wealthy investments into the mRNA technology as they’re already using it in different shots? Who in fact is leading the way of this dangerous irresponsible denial of harms and future harms? Even individual governments are following some mysterious lead. I know the Canadian government just threw it back to the manufactures for answers. Duh. Surely, they’re not that dense. We’re talking about an industry who are known thugs who pay large fines for lying and being dishonest about their trials.
I am hopeful that one day soon the house of cards will come tumbling down but it won’t be without a fight. Doctors, scientists fear for their careers if they dare speak out as has been observed with others. Even Phillip Buckhaults has folded his tent after being attacked as an anti vaxxer. I’m hoping the individuals who have proven that the DNA contamination exists in huge numbers will form an alliance perhaps allowing others to come forward.
I remember when they withdrew a flu vaccine after a reported death….regulators have become depraved.
Remember in Australia health professionals are muzzled by APHRA TGA COLLEGES & Professional bodies. And sadly TNI has flagged misinfo disinfo re medications in MSM. Cabinet confidentiality has also ensured 20 years of hidden facts with National Cabinet included in secrecy
Are western nations getting totalitarian?
It seems to me that for many decades now Big Pharma has been acting like a Colombian Drug Cartel, with total impunity for law and order and ensuring the protection of its cartels, by corrupting politicians worldwide into financially rewarding web.
It is clear to even a casual observer like myself, that the similarities between the way that Big Pharma and the illegal drug cartels co-opt and corrupt regulators and politicians is all but identical.
It necessarily follows that our approach and attitude to Big Pharma should be exactly the same as it is to the drug cartels.
The people at the top of these organisations are evil. The depths their malfeasance will plunge is only conditioned by the size of the financial honey pot at the bottom.
Like the drug cartels, they have no care for the health, safety and wellbeing of the public in their midst, and to be honest, they never did.
Personally I believe the only way that a change might occur, is if an off shoot of DOGE is set up to dismantle the corruption within the medical drug establishment, and those at the top of these institutions are hunted down in the same way that the drug barons are hunted and imprisoned for the same duration as their cartels cousins.
Only when the freedom and liberty of the Big Pharma Barons is effected by long term jail sentences, might we see a change in this industry to the benefit of the public that they are deemed to serve.
Perfectly articulated. I’m currently drafting an article that makes similar points. Massive fines are nowhere near enough to deter this criminal behaviour. Individuals must be held accountable.
The pandemic highlighted the enormous problem of fast track approvals where limited results from manufacturers usually Big Pharma trials can corrupt approval decisions. At least large influential regulators (FFA EMA TGA MHRA) need to make independant regulator controlled trials with NO CONFLICTS IF INTEREST. Public service always needs to be fearless and free of favours if the people are to be served well
Massive DNA contamination across the world has started with FDA not doing its research without fear and favour
I got this interesting reply from ChatGPT to my question
Given the imperative of finding best solutions for large populations- would it be more effective if all formal trials were performed by regulators rather than drug companies with a percentage pay back of price of marketed drug
Answer:
Yes, having regulators conduct formal drug trials instead of pharmaceutical companies, with a percentage payback model, could lead to more effective, unbiased, and cost-efficient solutions for large populations. Here’s why:
Advantages of Regulator-Led Trials
1. Unbiased Results
• Currently, pharmaceutical companies fund their own trials, leading to potential biases in study design, patient selection, and data reporting.
• Regulators (e.g., TGA, FDA, EMA) conducting trials would ensure neutral assessments of efficacy and safety.
2. Focus on Public Health Over Profit
• Drug companies prioritize marketable treatments, often focusing on high-profit drugs rather than the most effective or cheapest solutions.
• Regulatory-led trials could prioritize the best options for population health, including repurposed generics or low-cost alternatives.
3. Comparative Effectiveness Studies
• Instead of relying on placebo-controlled trials alone, regulators could conduct comparative trials between new and existing treatments.
• This ensures that only the most effective drugs reach the market, preventing overpriced, marginally effective treatments.
4. Faster & More Efficient Drug Approvals
• Regulator-led trials could streamline data collection and reduce duplication (since companies run separate trials in multiple countries).
• A centralized trial system could speed up drug availability for public health crises.
5. Cost Savings & Payback Model
• Drug companies would still profit, but they would pay a percentage of their revenue back to fund future public trials.
• This would shift the burden of funding from taxpayers to companies who benefit from approvals.
Challenges & Considerations
• Pharma Resistance: Companies may resist giving up control over trials, fearing tighter regulatory oversight.
• Regulatory Capacity: Agencies would need more funding & expertise to conduct large-scale trials.
• IP & Innovation Concerns: Some argue companies drive innovation due to profit incentives, but a public trial system could still reward innovation while ensuring fairness.
Real-World Examples
• UK RECOVERY Trial (COVID-19):
• A government-led trial that rapidly identified effective treatments (dexamethasone, tocilizumab) at low cost.
• NIH-led Trials in the U.S.:
• The NIH has run trials for repurposed drugs, though most funding still comes from industry.
Conclusion
A regulator-led, payback-funded trial system would likely lead to:
✔ Faster, cheaper, and fairer access to effective treatments
✔ More rigorous, unbiased data on drug effectiveness
✔ Lower costs for governments & taxpayers
This model could revolutionize medicine approval by ensuring public interest comes first, not corporate profits. Would you like to explore how this could be implemented in Australia or globally?
"In some cases, the DNA contamination exceeded the amount of mRNA itself."
WHOAAA ! Just absolutely SHOCKING, SHAMEFUL, SICKENING 😲 🤢🤮
Regulators must have their heads up their own proverbial if they aren't going to react to THIS 😱