World Council for Health Emergency Meeting Monday October 9 at 2pm (EST)
Data that may be relevant
Cancer promotion by a vaccine is frankly, unheard of. But now that Dr. Kevin McMcKernan has informed us about the contaminating DNA in the mRNA vaccines (both Pfizer and Moderna) and the SV40 oncogenic sequences, I think it is safe to say that this risk no matter how small it might be, is in fact, quite real.
So I decided to do some homework.
IMAGE 1. Not only are people sick and tired of the side effects of the “not safe nor effective” COVID-19 mRNA vaccines (top 4 side effects are headache, fatigue, nausea and insomnia) but there is also good evidence of the toxicity of the mRNA shots.
The striking level of vaccine failures compared to years prior strongly implies these mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not protective and fail to prevent infections.
Recall that the UK Office of National Statistics showed only one month where the all cause mortality showed a benefit over risk (February 2021 associated with one dose and a delay of the 2nd dose) Table 1.
Table 1. UK ONS Data Only February 2021 Showed a Favorable Benefit over Risk Profile
In fact, the ONS data provides evidence that the vaccines should have been globally withdrawn from market during the first few days of February 2021.
From Image 1, the induction or enhancement of the following types of adverse events through repeated mRNA vaccination is most concerning :
autoimmune reactivity,
immunosenescence of macrophages,
immunosuppression,
myocarditis & sudden deaths,
increased tumorigenesis (benign and malignant), and last but not least,
deaths.
Why did I examine the 5 types of adverse events listed in red in Image 1??
There are 3 cell types in the human body which likely produce high levels of reverse transcriptase related to high levels of HERV-K102 particle production. Thus, these cell types may be at higher risk of genomic integration of plasmid DNA (mRNA COVID-19 vaccines) and/or oncogenic SV40 sequences (Pfizer/BioNTech). While all 3 cell types show vacuolation, 2 of the 3 cell types (lipid body negative foamy macrophages and sebocytes) are NON-PROLIFERATING CELLS that release the particles by cell lysis. This apoptosis involves a novel type of cytoplasm-initiated cell lysis [Fischer H, Fumicz J, Rossiter H, et al. Holocrine secretion of sebum is a unique DNase2-dependent mode of programmed cell death. J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Mar;137(3):587-594. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.10.017.]).
Thus, the sebocytes (IMAGE 2) and lipid body negative foamy macrophages (IMAGE 3) may be at lower risk of oncogenesis.
IMAGE 2. Sebocytes resemble the lipid negative foamy macrophages and also produce the protector HERV-K102 particles.
Actually they are macrophages and can be activated.
IMAGE 3. Two types of Foamy Macrophages A= lipid body positive [from Peyron P et al, 2008] and B =lipid body negative that produces the protector foamy virus, HERV-K102 [Laderoute M et al, 2007; 2015].
IMAGE 4. Mucous acini in salivary glands may or may not produce HERV-K102 particles (needs to be investigated).
https://www.slideshare.net/LubnaAbuAlRub/salivary-gland-50814444
Why Salivary gland tumors?
Saliva contains antibodies to HERV-K102 envelope in mild COVID-19 patients [Apostolou E, Rizwan M, Moustardas P, et al. Saliva antibody-fingerprint of reactivated latent viruses after mild/asymptomatic COVID-19 is unique in patients with myalgic-encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome. Front Immunol. 2022 Oct 20;13:949787. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.949787 ] so it is possible that the HERV-K102 particles are also produced. For example, it has been suggested that the HERV-102 particles induce the antibodies to HERV-K102 envelope. These innate neutralizing antibodies [Laderoute, MP, submitted] are only temporary (unless the stimulus is constant) so it implies the HERV-K102 particles are also found in saliva. HOWEVER this needs to be directly assessed.
In saliva glands vacuoles are produced by acini (more likely the mucous acini which stain lighter) and secreted into the lumens without cell lysis. If any of these contain HERV-K102 particles, then these cells differ from the macrophages in that these cells would be replication competent and thus, subject to transformation. This is why I looked at the salivary tumors in the VAERs database in Image 1.
As shown in Image 1 we see there are dramatic increases in salivary gland neoplasms (benign tumors) from 0 in 2020 to 7 in 2021 and going to 13 in 2022. While not as dramatic, nevertheless the few salivary gland cancers (malignant tumors), is highly significant, as they have NEVER been ASSOCIATED with vaccination in the history of VAERS. So the average number in 2015-2019 is 0, 0 again in 2020 and then 3 and 3 in 2021 and 2022.
The fact that most symptoms subside in 2022, but not these tumor types tells us there is something driving their persistence.
Macrophages although long considered the central orchestrator of both innate and adaptive immunity, are primarily associated with innate immunity, the antigen non-specific arm of the immune system involving interferon responses and intrinsic pathogen detection systems. Dendritic cells that are the antigen presenters for adaptive immune responses are derived from a separate set of bone marrow progenitors, called the Common Lymphoid Progenitors (CLPs). Instead macrophages (and monocytes) are derived from the Common Myeloid Progenitors (CMPs) which then generate the Granulocyte-Macrophage Progenitors (GMPs) and the Megakaryocyte-Erythroid Progenitors (MEPs) [Hussein HAM, Thabet AAA, Mohamed TIA, Elnosary ME, Sobhy A, El-Adly AM, Wardany AA, Bakhiet EK, Afifi MM, Abdulraouf UM, Fathy SM, Sayed NG, Zahran AM. Phenotypical changes of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells in COVID-19 patients: Correlation with disease status. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2023;48(2):97-110. doi: 10.5114/ceji.2023.129981. ]
So when we talk about monocytes in the blood or about macrophages in the tissues in reality we are talking about innate immunity.
While the monocytes/macrophages are not proliferation competent in humans, their progenitors are. Thus, it is possible that the Common Myeloid Progenitors (CMPs) could be attacked by spike protein, the lipid-nanoparticles (LNPs) and/or SARS-CoV-2. Accordingly, I also searched for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in the wonder.cdc.gov database. These tend to be a more malignant leukemia than most.
As shown in Image 1, on average in 2015-2019, there were 4.3 AML cases per year associated with vaccination. However, in 2020, there was only one but 64 in 2021 associated with mass vaccination with mRNA vaccines. In addition we see in 2022, there were another 64 incident cases. This cancer type is also persisting like the salivary gland tumors!
One of the reasons AML might be more common with the COVID-19 vaccines might relate to the fact that the vaccines enhance COVID-19 infections. COVID-19 infections were commonly observed with the onset of AML and those with COVID-19 infection tended to have longer survival times. This may mean that the oncogenic effects of SARS-COV-2 were short-lived or perhaps a hit and run.
It also remains to be determined if during severe COVID-19 that AML cases may have been possibly potentiated by emergency myelopoiesis provoking the circulation of the CMPs. It is possible that myeloid cell linages may take developmental shortcuts to producing HERV-K102 particles such as in CD68 positive inflammatory monocytes as found in tissues ie., in the lungs [Delorey TM, Ziegler CGK, Heimberg G, Normand R, Yang Y, Segerstolpe Å, et al. COVID-19 tissue atlases reveal SARS-CoV-2 pathology and cellular targets. Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7865):107-113. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03570-8.]
Moving forward it may be useful to not only record the presence or absence of COVID-19 infections associated with COVID-19 vaccines in the VAERS database, but their severity!!! (Maybe the number of vaccine doses administered per month should also be captured?)
We cannot ignore ADE effects for any vaccine.
We also see a boost in the incidence of “neoplasm progression” (medical term for Turbo cancer), and malignant neoplasm progression in Image 1 where neoplasm progression may be a more rarely found symptom as a side effect of vaccination.
In summary, aside from the overall toxicity of the mRNA vaccines, the persistence of AML and the salivary gland tumors into 2022 indicates these rarer tumors may be of specific interest to the notion of plasmid DNA and SV40 sequences used for gene therapy.
One should exploit artificial intelligence to determine what other tumors or even symptoms may have persisted or increased in 2022.
IMAGEs 5a and 5b. Differences between Pfizer and Moderna Symptoms Associated with Vaccination presented by Dose.
By finding a source for number of COVID-19 vaccines administered in the USA by company (results to April 26, 2023)
[Milulic M, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1198516/covid-19-vaccinations-administered-us-by-company/, May 2, 2023],
I was able to calculate the overall rate of adverse events per dose (Image 5a and b).
This rate was only slightly higher for Pfizer at 0.00262 than Moderna at 0.00237. The corresponding risks of adverse events were 1/382 versus 1/421, respectively. This was a little surprising as Moderna contains higher amounts of LNPs per dose but is consistent with increased contaminants in the Pfizer vials.
The top line of each table in Image 5 a and b refers to the total number of adverse events for that dose and the line below it is the % of total adverse events that that dose represents. For Moderna the dose with the most adverse events per dose was the first dose (about 45 %) while for Pfizer it was the second dose at about 38 %. As the number of doses increased there were fewer and fewer adverse events reported. This could mean tolerance induction possibly related to the spike IgG1 and 3 being converted to IgG4. It could also mean the doses were more and more immunosuppressive thereby creating less inflammation and fewer reactions. The drop-off of adverse events with dose for Pfizer is similar to Moderna.
The next line reveals all deaths so Pfizer had 11,338 deaths reported overall. Thus about 1.18% of all the adverse events (960,270) were reports of death. In contrast Moderna was slightly higher at 8470 deaths within the 551,199 adverse events which gave a case adverse event mortality rate of 1.54 %. Again Moderna injections had more LNPs per dose.
For sudden deaths there were 210 for Moderna for a rate of 0.04% of all adverse events. When compared with all deaths it represented 2.6% of all deaths. Pfizer had 889 for a total of 0.09% of all adverse events (higher). However, Pfizer sudden deaths represented 7.6% of all deaths, which is considerably higher. Thus, the Pfizer vaccine may cause proportionately more sudden deaths. Whether this relates to plasmid DNA and/or potentially higher endotoxin levels remains to be established.
Not shown in Image 5 is that acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) and total (acute and not acute) showed a progressive increase (standardized to number of adverse events per dose) with each subsequent dose. By the 5th dose for both Moderna and Pfizer mRNA shots, the combined myocardial infarctions represented over 1% of the total adverse events (ie., for the total adverse events in dose 5). That is to say that of 100 cases reporting an adverse event following dose 5 over 1% of the cases had suffered a specific type of heart attack. This likely represented the ability of the mRNA vaccines to generate clots in the blood. However, my previous experience with an immunosuppressive monoclonal (removed from market) was that the rate of MIs doubled every 2 months of use, which may also imply immunosuppression in the generation of MIs. It may be interesting to study MI rates verses myocarditis and pericarditis by dose.
For the rest of the discussion, I thought it would be best to summarize in Tables.
TABLE 2. Malignant NEOPLASMs Increase with Every mRNA SHOT
I think this observation speaks for itself.
TABLE 3. CFRs of Symptoms of Interest
Table 3 provides an overview of the case fatality rate (CFR) for symptoms of interest.
We see here (Table 3) that generally Moderna outshines Pfizer for higher death rates and without any particular preference for dose. This might be consistent with a higher concentration of LNPs per dose. Note however that there were only 14 cases of “tumor progression” for Moderna (Image 5b) where 4 were benign and 10 were malignant which were too few cases per dose to judge the worst dose for Moderna.
In contrast for Pfizer, there were a total of 131 cases of “tumor progression” where 108 were captured as neoplasm progression and 23 as malignant neoplasm progression. This seems to suggest Pfizer vaccination imparts a special something in causing ‘malignant transformation’ such as “epithelial mesenchyme transition (EMT)’. It remains to be determined if SV40 sequences played a role in EMT.
Not shown in Image 5, when one compares Pfizer to Moderna rates standardized based on total adverse events, for “neoplasm progression” the relative risk was 15-fold higher rates for Pfizer. For “malignant neoplasm” progression it was 1.3-fold higher for Pfizer over Moderna. Overall for “tumor progression (combined)”, adverse events for Pfizer were 5.4-fold higher over Moderna.
For the AML cases the mean time to death after vaccination was 4.57 months (n = 15 informative cases) for Moderna versus 3.59 months (n= 17 informative cases) for Pfizer, so there is some indication for AML that the Pfizer vaccine was a little more oncogenic.
All together, these findings could mean there is something oncogenic (especially rendering a benign tumor malignant, i.e., EMT) present in the PFIZER mRNA vaccine, not present or at lower concentration in the Moderna mRNA vaccine.
Table 4. For Turbo Cancers (neoplasm progression plus malignant neoplasm progression) the Time from Last Vaccination to Death in Months is provided.
Pfizer shots act sooner (first deaths in January 2021 compared to June 2021) and about 4 times quicker than Moderna shots.
These results are consistent with the presence of something in Pfizer (or at higher concentration) that is more oncogenic causing TURBO CANCERS (faster deaths)!
SUMMARY
The unprecedented level of serious adverse events associated with using gene therapy as a technology for immunization purposes while both irresponsible and deadly, was entirely predictable. These attributes of gene therapy shots were well known to Pfizer, Moderna, the FDA, the CDC and their advisory committees prior to authorization for emergency use access and ordinarily would have stopped the mass vaccination campaign.
Only a criminal inquiry will assert why the various organizations failed to intervene.
However, the finding of DNA plasmids including those that code for oncogenic SV40 sequences is much more than insult to injury, as there is no predicting of the long-term consequences of the observed oncogenic properties of these gene therapy shots.
We have observed various lines of evidence that both mRNA vaccines were oncogenic including the loss of immunosurveillance against tumors. Nevertheless, there seemed to be more ‘turbo’ in the Pfizer associated tumors potentially related to the extra presence of the SV40 promoter and nuclear localization signal. Higher levels of plasmids and/or endotoxin may have also contributed.
In terms of reverse transcriptase and integration of sequences into the genome, it is argued here that AML as well as salivary gland tumors could be cancer types that might be at high risk of plasmid DNA integration related to HERV-K102 reverse transcriptase. All vaccinated patients with AML and salivary gland tumors should be investigated for these plasmid sequences.
The other telltale sign was that the elevated incidence levels of these tumors in 2021 persisted into 2022. Thus, one needs to screen the VAERS database for other cancers that might increase or persist in 2022. This screening should be performed for all vaccines (not just the COVID-19 vaccines) because the response of a certain vaccine, also depends on other recent vaccines. Some cancers might be caught upon vaccination with other vaccine types, but where it may be that the oncogenic potential of the mRNA vaccines contributed significantly earlier for example.
It is noteworthy that two Pfizer lots implicated in AML + were very close in sequence:
ER8734 (AML, salivary gland cancer) and
ER8736 (AML, Haemophagocytic LymphoHstiocytosis, Myelodysplastic Syndrome). This provides some reassurance that these adverse side effects were not random effects.
The following lots of Pfizer C19 vax have been identified as overlapping in two or more of the following diseases: Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), recurrent AML (rAML), Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), Haemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis (HLH). Separately Paraneoplastic Syndrome EL9264 with HLH. Alopecia with Tinnitus FG3527 was associated with AML. For MDS and AML we have EL8982, EN6200 (2 cases of AML), ET3620 (2 AML cases), 1F1003A, EX8679. We have a rAML & salivary gland neoplasm connection FC3095; AML (x2) and salivary gland cancer ER8734. Lots EP2163 & FF2382 were associated with HLH and rAML. Lot ER8736 was associated with AML, MDS and HLH suggesting a common etiology. EW0167 was associated with 2 cases of AML & one HLH. Lot 2382 was associated with HLH, AML and rAML. The connection of AML lot #'s with lot #'s of salivary gland tumors was an interesting observation and reinforces the notion of HERV-K102 particle production in salivary acini.