In my humble opinion, it’s already been done.
And whatever one’s opinion of Denis Rancourt, he too has done it.
Not sure how many independent analyses of official or actual corporate figures one needs for that to be construed as evidence.
Hi Pat
Yes - some people are putting together some work in this area. I think that’s great.
I’ll just say that it’s one thing to point to an increase in deaths but it’s a much more tricky thing to determine the cause.
Looks like Rancourt and his team are trying to match similar cohorts of vaccinated Vs unvaccinated. That’s a good start.
Although I accept, as I always have done, that the burden of proof should be on those who claim something is safe, rather than those who think it might be dangerous
Cheers
Isn’t that exactly what all the cases above are showing? They all show very, very strong correlation with the Convid jab. They are not the ones (in your own words) who need the burden of proof. The burden of proof rest with Pfizer, the MHRA, the CDC, the NHS, and of course all the criminal’s like Whitty, Ferguson, Hancock who have been parroting the ‘safe snd effective’ line on the basis of things like the 9 mice study!!
Latest via Cremola. McKernan rattles through it all
The Cremola link actually leads off with a new monster - iDNA vaccines. Or,
““Immunization DNA” or iDNA is a novel class of gene therapy “vaccines” that encodes for the whole virus”
He calls it mRNA on steroids.
He asks: What could go wrong?
Indeed.
But back to the DNA contamination.
Just to relay this update from the inside out…
A quick recap, the presence of appreciable, regulation-busting amounts of bacterial DNA in the Pfizer and Moderna shots was revealed by Kevin McKernan (by all accounts leading expert in sequencing methods for DNA and RNA) in April of this year. Certain shortcomings were admitted - the vaccine samples were mostly expired, the work wasn’t peer reviewed.
Cue a sojourn into the long grass? McKernan, who going by his Twitter seems to have a bit of gumption about him, simply published his work and his methods, and invited other outlets to reproduce his work. And that they soon did, so it is not being doubted. McKernan points out that replication trumps peer review, and that many peer review papers can’t be replicated,
Snapshot of these replications from the video:
If this is too fast, then this looks like a reasonable lay-tech summary of the history since April, from Doctors for Covid Ethics:
And a July post from a reliable Substacker
The McKernan presentation is a good gateway to the potential or actual ramifications of the DNA presence.
Never mind the future - what about the present? An attempt is made here to relate the quantities of DNA found in batches to the number of adverse events.
https://osf.io/mjc97/
This study was fairly successful in that a relationship was indeed found, though McKernan and co (along with David Speicher, the biological part of an impressive stats data team) says there are caveats and these results are preliminary.
In the video clip (14m long) McKernan also explains a little about the technology for quantifying the DNA presence. Different methods produce different amounts due to small-sizes possibly being missed. He reveals a bit of skullduggery as the manufacturers exploited that to ‘show’ the regulators the DNA levels were low.
Interview with McKernan
Robert Malone on this
Sorry it’s a bit of a jumble - I don’t have the knowledge to put all this together in a sensible sequence.
But this might help tie it together (and if it doesn’t, at least it’s together here in the physical sense 
) :
World Council for Health (perhaps the medical and moral antithesis to the World Health Organisation)
This is the conference from which the McKernan video was taken. Helpfully the contributions have been isloated:
ED
