A fresh controversy is erupting over the safety and quality of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, as another laboratory—this time in the Czech Republic—has uncovered troubling levels of DNA contamination in multiple commercial vaccine batches.
Dr Soňa Peková, a respected clinical biochemist and molecular geneticist with 71 published papers, detected excessive amounts of residual DNA in both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines—up to 100 times higher than regulatory limits.
In some cases, the DNA contamination exceeded the amount of mRNA itself. This discovery adds to mounting evidence that regulators have repeatedly ignored.
Too big to ignore
With multiple laboratories across different countries confirming that various batches contain high levels of DNA contamination, the pressure on regulators intensifies.
More than eight independent laboratories worldwide have reinforced a fundamental principle of scientific discovery: replication.
The ability to reproduce findings across different research teams and methodologies is the gold standard for establishing scientific validity. With such a strong pattern emerging, these findings are too big to ignore.
One expert calling for immediate action is Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease at the Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute.
He warns that the high and inconsistent levels of DNA contamination “raise serious questions about the quality processes being used by mRNA manufacturing companies.”
“Regulatory requirements demand that every batch of a vaccine be essentially identical,” he explains. “If regulators are knowingly allowing mRNA vaccine batches with widely varying levels of DNA contamination to be released, this would indicate a complete breakdown of normal regulatory processes.”
Even a student study in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s own lab found DNA contamination exceeding regulatory safety limits by as much as 470 times. Yet, authorities continue to downplay the issue.
“The onus must now be on the regulators to prove these findings are erroneous,” Petrovsky emphasises.
So far, neither manufacturers nor regulators have produced data to disprove these findings. “Given the weight of evidence, it is no longer acceptable for regulators to dismiss concerns with blanket claims that DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines is not a problem,” he adds.
Regulatory stonewalling
Regulators worldwide have failed to act, insisting that residual DNA poses no health risk yet providing no transparent data to substantiate this claim. Instead, concerns are met with vague assurances, leaving many scientists frustrated by the wilful blindness.
Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), for example, publicly denies any harm, even though internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request reveal that the agency privately acknowledged the potential cancer risk posed by residual DNA.
Kevin McKernan has repeatedly challenged these assurances, stating, “The regulators are using a 1986 standard for a 2023 problem,” highlighting that the DNA fragments are not inert but “wrapped in lipid nanoparticles,” the perfect delivery system into cells.
Political Pressure
Political leaders are now facing mounting pressure to act. In Australia, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been urged to suspend the mRNA vaccines until a full investigation is conducted. These calls, however, have largely been ignored.
Governments continue pushing the mRNA vaccine programme forward and no regulator wants to risk unearthing a scandal that could expose incompetence or corruption. Instead, institutions and political operatives have focused on discrediting the sources of the data rather than addressing the findings themselves.
Petrovsky stresses the urgency of the situation, warning that if proven, this issue could expose regulators to accusations of negligence.
“Given the seriousness of this issue, Robert Kennedy Jr, in his new position as Director of Health and Human Services, would be wise to order an immediate independent expert inquiry,” he suggests.
“Full openness and transparency are the only way to maintain public faith in health services and regulatory processes,” Petrovsky continues. “Particularly after the many Covid-19 public health debacles, including the highly flawed modelling from institutes such as the Doherty, which was used to justify harsh vaccine mandates despite their futility.”
The evidence continues to pile up and the demand for accountability grows, but who will take on the regulators? If anyone is going to challenge them, it may well be Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
IPAK-EDU is grateful to Maryanne Demasi, reports as this piece was originally published there and is included in this news feed with mutual agreement. Read More
Leave a Reply