Refuting Pfizer's DNA Lies

Pfraudulent Pfindings

Aug 29, 2024

Scoops McGoo has recently published pages from an FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to Health Canada regarding the Pfizer mRNA shots, where they basically admit, yes, the shots are contaminated with DNA.

So, in their newest stunt to mislead the vaccine injured, Pfizer have outright lied and claimed — without evidence — that DNA has a “half-life of 50-90 mins”. It doesn’t.

Instead, their lie rests on the assumption that the human body will rectify their poison, and even then it contains massive caveats.

Lets break down their lies.

Incorrectly Assumes It Is Outside The LNPs

Their first flawed caveat is the use of ‘DNA present outside of the LNP’ (lipid nanoparticles), because they know deep down the body doesn’t purge DNA within the LNPs (if they claimed it did purge DNA within LNPs, they’d be admitting the LNP delivery mechanism doesn’t work).

Bearing in mind the DNA sits loose for ages inside a vial or syringe, it has plenty of time to get caught up in the LNPs.

Incorrectly Assumes White Cells Will Fix The Problem

The fact a white cell has to ‘fix the problem’ is a major red flag. This excuse does not apply to the immunocompromised, or those taking immune suppressant drugs (E.G. those receiving organ transplants). It ironically and naively assumes a healthy body that isn’t fighting infection or isn’t devoid of white cells.

This also assumes the DNA has already contaminated a cell, but it has absolutely nothing to do with DNA degradation, only the destruction of contaminated cells.

Fundamentally, it is a totally incorrect statement, because DNA is degraded by enzymes, not ‘phagocytosed by endogenous inflammatory cells’.

Source: Life and death of circulating cell-free DNA

Pfizer know this, so why are they making fraudulent, misleading statements to Health Canada?

Incorrectly Assumes LNP Encapsulated DNA Only Goes To The Cytoplasm

The fact they admit there’s residual DNA in the LNP verifies what The Daily Beagle has been saying (namely, DNA gets dragged into the cell by LNPs). And, no it won’t be delivered to the cytoplasm, because as savvy readers will know, the DNA contains the SV40 promoter sequence that gives it access to the nucleus.

Pfizer are essentially trying to execute an ‘if-by-whisky’ fallacy, where their DNA exhibits these magical properties depending on what state it is in. If it’s permanently safe in LNPs, suddenly it magically can’t enter the nucleus, but if it’s not in the LNPs, then magically it instantly disappears because cells eat it (???). There’s only one word for this: horseshit.

Incorrectly Claim It Isn’t Active In The Cytoplasm

They incorrectly claim it has no impact inside the cytoplasm with the misleading claim that it “is not transcriptionally active”.

There’s been plenty of studies of foreign DNA within cytoplasm. And guess what?

It causes cancer. And heart disease. And neurodegenerative disease.

Source: Cytoplasmic DNA: sources, sensing, and role in aging and disease

Incorrectly Claim Short Time = No Danger

They also peddle the lie it lasts for 50-90 minutes (note the misuse of ‘half-life’ here to make it seem shorter; all it means is after 50-90 minutes or so, there will be half the amount, not that it will be completely gone; ‘don’t forget your booster shots!’).

Even if we assume their bullshit figures, an hour of contaminated DNA sitting inside your cell is too long. It shouldn’t even be there. Cyanide can kill within seconds to minutes. 50 minutes is plenty of time in the cellular world.

50 minutes is more than enough time to:

Take a poop
Get infected with a sexually transmitted disease ← most relevant
Bleed out
Form a blood clot
Die from a neurological toxin
Have your heart beat 3,000 times (60 BPM) pumping approximately 50 litres of blood, moving about 41 times your body’s blood around your blood circulatory system (read: the DNA literally gets everywhere).

So even if we take Pfizer’s lies at face value this is not a demonstration of safety. Short time does not mean no harm. This is a fallacy, one that works by omission. What happens within the 50 minutes? They don’t say.

Their claim also misleadingly conflates, via omission, DNA degradation times by the body’s defences (you have to defend yourself against a Pfizer shot!) with the ‘half-life’ of DNA. DNA fragments can survive for years.

Source: The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils

Or the more bluntly titled:

And their little selective application does not apply to unborn babies:

Baby’s first DNA modification.

Citations Shoots Them In The Foot

They claim citation 10 is proof DNA would be ‘phagocytosed’, but actually…

…the title of the paper is ‘The role of extracellular DNA (exDNA) in cellular processes’, and the abstract actually talks about how extracellular DNA is associated with harmful conditions, such as myocardial infarction, diabetes and cancer.

Readers may recall the time a clinicial trial site falsely claimed a black woman was on a ‘watermelon diet’ in an attempt to justify her getting Diabetic Ketoacidosis after taking the Pfizer shot. So yes, diabetes is plausible.

Citations 11 and 12 continue the trend. Citation 11 is titled ‘Human cells clear foreign DNA’, which at first sounds positive. Until you actually read the paper.

Firstly, it has this clanger:

Oh, so foreign DNA does actually pose a threat to the genome.

And it turns out the paper is actually a ‘shell paper’ (mostly likely trying to scrub inconvenient conclusions) — it only has one author, and one citation…

…and the citation it uses is ‘APOBEC3 proteins mediate the clearance of foreign DNA from human cells’ — notice it does not say ‘macrophages phagocytosed cells’, but proteins.

The shell paper tries to act like the APOBEC3 protein both deaminates (put simply: destroys DNA) and impedes genetic transfer, but the original paper states that is a completely different protein (other APOBEC3s).

The shell paper also conveniently omits the byline of the original paper it is mimicking: that “DNA vaccines” and genetic engineering would be impacted by this mechanism. You know, the one Pfizer pretended did not apply to their shot and claimed did not exist.

Notice it does not say “prevented”, but “influenced”. As in, adversarially. Misfolded protein sequences any body?

As for citation 12, this hilariously outdated paper from 1999 (for context, this was back when VHS tapes were still fashionable) titled ‘Metabolic instability of plasmid DNA in the cytosol: a potential barrier to gene transfer’ isn’t relevant because it relates to microinjection directly into a cell:

It goes on to state that they don’t know the impact on transfection efficiency:

The paper, ironically suggests a completely different mechanism to the one claimed by Pfizer, namely that some vague cytosolic nuclease (no names of specifics given, note) in the cytoplasm is doing the work of clearance:

However, The Daily Beagle quotes the much more specific ‘Ca²⁺-sensitive cytosolic nucleases prevent efficient delivery to the nucleus of injected plasmids’ which goes on to state that…

PEI (polyethyleneimine) negates degradation. If the name sounds familiar, you probably read The Daily Beagle article detailing how PEI is in food, water treatment, food packaging etc, and that article detailed how PEI aided transfection.

You know, secondary environmental effect factors that would have been considered if Pfizer weren’t a bunch of fraudulent hacks.

Incorrectly Assert There Are Multiple Magical Biological Mechanisms (Which They Don’t State As It Destroys Their Argument)

This is a classic case of ‘citation spamming’, where they throw a bunch of citation numbers, but evade actually describing the process (a red flag their argument is weak as hell).

Source: Non-viral Delivery of Nucleic Acids: Insight into Mechanisms of Overcoming Intracellular Barriers.

Citation 13 is ‘Non-viral Delivery of Nucleic Acids: Insight into Mechanisms of Overcoming Intracellular Barriers.’ which, not only admits they know little about how it works, but just rehashes the incorrect ‘macrophage phagocytosis’ mentioned earlier.

Source: ‘Intracellular trafficking of nucleic acids.’

Citation 14 is ‘Intracellular trafficking of nucleic acids.’ and it ironically destroys one of their key arguments by mentioning plasmid DNA can travel to the nucleus (that’s where DNA integration occurs).

Source: ‘Cytoplasmic transport and nuclear import of plasmid DNA.’

Citation 15 is ‘Cytoplasmic transport and nuclear import of plasmid DNA.’ which makes some vague assertions that ‘plasmid DNA has to overcome hurdles to reach the nucleus’ but ironically admits it requires a sequence promoter. You know, such as the SV40 sequence promoter found in the plasmid DNA in the Pfizer shots.

As for the ‘number of intracellular events’ that allow the DNA to enter the cell… that’s exactly what the LNP does.

Citation 16 is ‘The Nuclear Pore Complex as a Flexible and Dynamic Gate’ simply rehashes an old argument, in it points out there is a barrier between the cytoplasm and nucleus. Oh no! If only there was some sort of nuclear localisation signal (NLS) or promoter sequence like SV40 in the plasmid to get around it! Oh wait… there is!

These citations either shoot Pfizer in the foot or rehash tired tropes.

The pharmaceutical companies can never admit to crime. To do so would be to destroy their entire business. Why is anybody asking what they think when we’ve got them dead to rights admitting DNA is in the shots?

They’ve admitted to the crime, who cares if they’re desperately begging for an attempted murder charge?

Found this informative?

Help inform?

Thoughts, dear reader?

The Daily Beagle