"Adulteration" of the Pfizer/BioNTech vials

And it is not just the SV40 sequences.

Various commentators, including me, have stated that the Pfizer product is adulterated. What does that mean specifically? And how could that have happened?

What is Adulteration?

Adulteration has a specific LEGAL definition which is in the Food and Drug Act (Canadian). Note, it is not a guideline or even a regulation. It is in the Act itself. Section 30 is Administration and Enforcement of the Food and Drug Act which was first passed in 1920 and updated in 1985.

• 30 (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect, and, in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations

  • (a) declaring that any food or drug or class of food or drugs is adulterated if any prescribed substance or class of substances is present therein or has been added thereto or extracted or omitted there from;

  • (a.01) declaring that any drug is adulterated if the Minister believes that a prescribed substance contained in that drug presents a serious risk to the environment;

And from Section 8 on Food and Drugs

Drugs

8 No person shall sell any drug that

• (a) was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions; or

• (b) is adulterated.

AND

Deception, etc., regarding drugs

• 9 (1) No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.

And Health Canada doesn’t have to prove the case, the onus is on the accused.

• (4) Where a person is prosecuted under this Part for having manufactured an adulterated food or drug for sale, and it is established that the person had in his possession or on his premises any substance the addition of which to that food or drug has been declared by regulation to cause the adulteration of the food or drug, the onus of proving that the food or drug was not adulterated by the addition of that substance lies on the accused.

Adulteration is taken quite seriously in manufacturing of drugs. This is because the reason that the FDA and Health Canada have Acts legislating and regulation drug manufacturing is because of adulteration stemming from the late 1800’s and early 1900s. For instance, Mrs Winslow’s soothing syrup for colicky babies did not disclose one of the ingredients was morphine. Bet that syrup made those babies quiet all right.

Advertising: Good for Man or Beast

Is the discovery of the SV40 sequences adulteration?

Has anything been added to, subtracted from or omitted? As per the sequencing performed by Kevin McKernan, and verified by Philip Buckhaults as well as Professor Lee, the SV40 sequences were omitted, and omitted purposefully. This meets the definition of the Act.

Here, Kevin McKernan shows you exactly, that in order to provide the plasmid map to the regulators someone must have omitted the SV40 sequences.

Intent to Deceive

Further, there is ANOTHER important omission. A second Open Reading Frame or “hidden gene.” See that green line running in the opposite direction of the gold line? The gold line is the sequence that makes the mRNA for the spike protein which is read left to right. The green line represents a 1250 amino acid protein read right to left. It is not known if it is being transcribed in people, but it certainly is not part of the virus itself. As best as one can tell, it does not make a human protein, but is closer to spider silk sequences. It does not appear to have a starting code or “Kozak” sequence so may not be translated at all. But it is another purposefully omitted annotation.

I am therefore of the opinion that the plasmid is an adulterated product. And because there is sufficient residual DNA in the final product, the final product is adulterated as well. One could argue that if every piece of DNA was removed from the mRNA made during transcription, then no adulteration is present. However, as we know, linear DNA fragments, many small, but some almost as large as the spike open reading frame is present in the vials, including the SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori. This makes it an adulterated product.

More than the SV40, what about the hidden gene?

The reverse ORF has been mentioned most curiously by Patel et al in 2023 which I found and reviewed in Feb 2023. In this paper, these Pfizer scientists assure us that there is no off-target translation of the fragmented and truncated mRNA. And these results were part of #blotgate.

Patel et al Characterization of BNT162b2

But a line near the end of the paper got my attention.

or the potential introduction of hidden open reading frames within the gene of interest or during construct design and optimization.²⁸

What hidden open reading frame? This is a PFIZER SCIENTIST admitting to a hidden gene in January 2023. WTH? I went to the linked reference and sure enough they describe the possibility of an ORF spanning the entire strand of the mRNA of the Pfizer vaccine. Not so much in Moderna.

Are there hidden genes in the mRNA vaccines?

Most importantly THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN FEBRUARY 2022, a whole year earlier. Why was this not talked about more? In fact, it created a bit of a buzz when James Lyons-Weiler also found it (so I’ve been told but I cant find the reference…help) but that faded away, likely because there was so much going on and it really didn’t make sense and no evidence that anything was being produced. Then why would a Pfizer scientist bring attention to this? Was this whistleblowing or part of an orchestrated break-up of Pfizer as I discussed in a previous substack?

Were the regulators duped?

Both Health Canada and the EMA have admitted they were duped and yes this represents adulteration under their respective Acts. I believe them because the onus is on the manufacturer to provide truthful data on the “structure” of the product that is to be regulated, and to the best of my knowledge, have always done so. HOWEVER, the remedy for finding adulteration is up to the Minister or government. They can impound or remove the adulterated product from circulation, but they can also determine that the adulteration does not cause harm to the “environment.” Guess which way the regulators are deciding.

PlasmidGate

Implications

1. Both Pfizer and the regulators are in a bind. We all now see that the product is adulterated and should be removed. It doesn’t really matter that one needs to prove the adulteration is unsafe. The fact that Pfizer performed these acts is sufficient imho.

2. The regulators likely cannot remove the product from the market if the analysis by Katherine Watts and Sasha Latypova is correct (ie under DOD control etc) and the current actions of the regulators bolster their argument.

3. We have not been able to analyze the Pfizer XBB vials to determine if the SV40 promoter is still present. If so, the products remain adulterated and it will be increasingly difficult to support authorization. If it has been removed, it is a tacit admission that there was intent to deceive. If I am right, the reverse ORF or hidden gene will still be there because that implies a whole new codon optimization exercise that would take some time. But we will see.

4. The unusual and strange actions of both Pfizer and the regulators give more evidence that neither party is in control of this exercise and the real perpetrators are coming into focus. We must increase the pressure.

5. Moderna is sitting pretty. This of course bothers me greatly. If you think Bourla is a psychopath, then Bansel is truly in another level.